IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.181 of 2019 BETWEEN:
1. GHOUSE @ SYED GHOUSE, S/O. NAVAB JAN, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, WORKING AS WOOD POLISHER RESIDENT OF JATPAT NAGAR, MATHUR ROAD, URGADUR, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203.
2. KALEEM, S/O. MUNNA, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, WORKING AS PAINTER, RESIDENT OF SHANTHINAGAR, 8TH CROSS, SULEBAILU, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 203.
(BY SRI J.D. KASHINATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THUNGA NAGAR POLICE STATON, SHIVAMOGGA.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.No.530 of 2018 (C.C.No.2963 of 2018) OF TUNGA NAGAR POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 341, 504, 506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The brief facts of the case on hand is that one Seema Parveen lodged a complaint stating that there was hatredness and ill-will between her brother Abid and another person Kadekal Abid. In fact, the said Kadekal Abid was waiting for an opportunity to do away with the life of the brother of the complainant. In this context, it is alleged that the persons namely, Salim, Kalim, Sharuq, Ghouse, Yasir, Rehamath and Nayaz were also making arrangements to assault the brother of the complainant. It is alleged that on 24.06.2018, at 12.00 noon, the deceased Abid had been to Pani Poori shop along with the son of the complainant and he came back at 1.30 p.m. in a car in order to leave the son of the complainant in their house. The complainant saw his brother who was in a threatened mood and in fact, the complainant questioned him as to what had happened and then he told that the accused persons are following him to assault him. After hearing the same, the complainant also went along with the deceased in the said car. It is stated that when the car came near Durgamma Temple, at that time, all the accused persons intercepted the Car and assaulted the deceased mercilessly. It is specifically stated that petitioner No.1 herein namely, Ghouse @ Syed Ghouse assaulted the deceased on the side of his stomach; petitioner No.2-Kaleem S/o Munna assaulted on the chest of the deceased with a knife and another accused Salim assaulted on his stomach and another accused by name Yaseer was holding the hands of the deceased so as to enable the other accused persons to assault the deceased. On the basis of the above said allegations, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.530/2018 and after completion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is absolutely no motive which is attributable to the accused persons and the other accused person namely, accused No.3-Salim and the remaining accused persons were already released on bail. He contends that the present petitioners also stand on the same footing as that of other accused persons. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail.
4. On perusal of the entire charge sheet papers, there are eyewitnesses to the incident, apart from the complainant, who is also an eyewitness to the incident. CWs.15 to 21 are shown to be the eyewitness to the incident. The other accused persons who were released on bail do not stand on the same footing as that of the present petitioners, because petitioner No.1 is the person who assaulted the deceased with the knife on the left side of the stomach and particularly, petitioner No.2-Kaleem assaulted the deceased on his chest. Perhaps these may be the injuries caused on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, which were fatal injuries to the deceased.
5. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances and also looking to the Post-Mortem Examination Report which says that the deceased died due to hemorrhage as a result of injuries to the lungs, kidneys and also to the chest. Therefore, in my opinion, in view of the presence of eyewitnesses and the statement of the complainant, the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Sd/ JUDGE mv