IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.969/2019 BETWEEN:
Mohammed Mansoor Sharief S/o Munawar Sharif, Aged about 22 years, R/at No.26/1, III Cross, Railway Parallel Road, Yeshwanthapura, Bengaluru – 560 022. ... Petitioner (By Sri N. Srinivas, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka By Kodigehalli Police Station,, Bengaluru – 560 092.
Represented by SPP, High Court Building , Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B. G., HCGP.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the
Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 302 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on bail in Crime No.182/2018 (C.C.No.25/2019) of Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 302 read with 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 19.08.2018 at about 10:00 PM, the complainant and the deceased-Chandrashekar went for dinner near Hebbal Flyover and were coming on their two wheeler and while so coming on the service road near Bhadrappa layout bridge, they saw one person who was standing and said person gave signal to stop the vehicle, the complainant thought that the said person is seeking for some help and when they stopped the vehicle, another person joined him on a motor cycle and the person, who waived his hand showed knife and asked to give him mobile and money. The deceased told that he has nothing with him and at that time, accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 to stab the deceased so that he will give his money and mobile. Accused No.1 took the knife and pierced in his left thigh and because of the said injury, he had a severe bleeding and the complainant got scared and handed over his mobile and Rs.3,000/- cash to the accused persons. When the complainant and deceased shouted, the accused persons fled away from the spot on their two wheeler. Immediately, the complainant called the 108 ambulance and the deceased was shifted to Aster CMI Hospital for treatment and after first aid treatment, he was taken to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital where the injured succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that already charge sheet has been filed and even there are contradictions and omissions in the statement given by the deceased. He also stated that two persons were proceeding on two wheeler and in his further statement, he stated that three persons were proceeding, even in respect of vehicle also, there is contradictions and omissions. He further submitted that, if the entire case of the prosecution is looked into, it is accused No.1, who assaulted the deceased with the knife and no serious overt acts have been alleged as against the petitioner-accused No.2. He further submitted that knife is also recovered at the instance of accused No.1 and the only overt act which is alleged against the petitioner-accused No.2 is that he was accompanying with accused No.1 and proceeded on the motor cycle. He further submitted that the Test Identification Parade which is said to have been conducted is also not in accordance with law. He further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place during night hours. Under such circumstances, it is very difficult for any person to identify the accused persons. The said Test Identification Parade is also falsified. The petitioner-accused No.2 is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the complainant is an eye witness to the alleged incident and the statement of the complainant clearly goes to show that at the instigation of accused No.2, accused No.1 stabbed and caused the death of an innocent person. She further submitted that the Investigating Officer has conducted Test Identification Parade and during the Test Identification Parade, CW.2 has identified accused Nos.1 and 2, who were present at the time of the alleged incident. The petitioner-accused No.2 is also involved in a serious offence, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material reveal that there are some contradictions in respect of the vehicle, which is said to have been used but that is not a material which is going to affect the case of the prosecution. Even as could be seen from the contents of the charge sheet, CW.2 is the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and the presence of the petitioner-accused No.2 is also not disputed. Even the statement of the CW.2 clearly goes to show that he who instigated accused No.1 to stab the deceased causing grievous injuries and as a result of the same, he succumbed to the injuries. Accused No.2-petitioner along with accused No.1 has been identified during the Test Identification Parade. Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail. Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-