IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5541 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
Imran Sherrif S/o Liyakath Sherriff Aged about 30 years R/at 1st Cross Tippunagara Right Side Shivamogga Taluk and District Shivamogga-577 201. ... PETITIONER (By Sri B Lethif, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka By Doddapete Police Station Shivamogga District Represented by SPP High Court Building Bangalore-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.39/2017 of Doddapete P.S., Shimoga, for the offences P/U/Ss 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 114 read with Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 114, 120(B) r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.39/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that even as per the prosecution material and more particularly, the statement of C.Ws.9 and 11, the alleged eyewitnesses, there is no overt act on the part of the petitioner herein. The only allegation against him is, after the incident petitioner and others came near the spot on two wheeler vehicles holding macchu in their hands and were shouting slogans ‘baccha margaya’. Hence, he has submitted that when there is no overt act on the part of the petitioner, as investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there was a criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and other accused persons. The prosecution material shows that the petitioner was also found at the spot holding macchu in his hand shouting slogan. He has also submitted that petitioner is having criminal antecedents. Apart from this case there are 13 other cases registered against him and recently in one case he has been convicted and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. In view of these materials, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition, so also, I have considered the oral submission made by the learned counsel on both sides at the bar.
6. Perusing the complaint averments as well as the statement of eyewitnesses it goes to show that there is no actual participation of the petitioner in the assault made on the deceased. But, however, it is the case of the prosecution that there was criminal conspiracy between the petitioner and all other accused persons to eliminate the deceased. Looking to the statement of eyewitnesses, more particularly, C.Ws.9 and 11, they have stated that immediately after the assault on the deceased by accused Nos.3, 5 and 6, the petitioner and other accused persons were seen near the spot in two wheelers holding deadly weapons and were shouting slogans ‘baccha margaya’.
7. Looking to these materials and also the statement made by the learned High Court Government Pleader about the criminal antecedents of the petitioner that apart from this case there are 13 other cases booked against him and recently in one case he has been convicted and sentenced for a term of 10 years imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, even if the petitioner is released on bail there is danger or threat to the prosecution witness. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, petition is rejected.
In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2017 filed for interim bail does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp