IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9230/2018 BETWEEN:
Mohammed Faizal S/o Sheikh Ibrahim Aged about 36 years R/o Farah Manzil Poopadikal, Moodabidri, Mangaluru Taluk-575 001.
(By Sri Vikas M., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Surathkal Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.260/2017 (C.C.No.1062/2018) of Surathkal Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 363, 364, 302, 201, 212, 468, 120B, 37 r/w. Sections 149 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.260/2017 (C.C.No.1062/2018) of Surathkal Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 363, 364, 302, 201, 212, 468, 120B, 37 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that, petitioner/accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated only on the basis of the voluntary statement of the other accused. He further submitted that the only allegation made as against the petitioner is that the deceased used to spread a false news as against the petitioner/accused. There are no animosity between the deceased and the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that since 2017 the petitioner/accused is languishing in jail and he is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that accused Nos.2 to 7 are the eyewitnesses. There is material to show that the deceased was kidnapped in the car by the other accused persons, the present petitioner took the motorbike of the deceased and followed the said car. She further submitted that the motorbike has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner/accused and he has shown the place where the dead body of the deceased has been buried and the body is not in a position to identify. The decomposed body has been sent for FSL for consideration. She further submitted that the petitioner/accused is not having any good antecedents and nine cases have been registered as against the petitioner/accused. She further submitted that the remaining accused persons are absconding. If this petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for the trial. On these grounds she prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
6. It is the specific contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that there are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the said witnesses have seen the deceased getting into the car and at that time the petitioner/accused drew the motorbike of deceased by following the said car. Thereafter, the said deceased was eliminated and petitioner/accused has also shown the place where the body of the deceased was buried and the bike has also been recovered at the instance of the petitioner/accused.
7. Be that as it may, even it is the specific contention of the learned High court Government Pleader that the petitioner/accused is having bad antecedents and nine cases have been registered as against the petitioner/accused, even the other accused persons are also absconding. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner/accused on bail only because he is languishing in the jail since 2017.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-