IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6988/2017 BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED SHUHAIB S/O MOHAMMED AKRAM AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCC: SCRAP BUSINESS R/AT NO.120, KRISHNA MURTHY COLONY, LAL BAGH SIDDAPUR, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK BANGALORE – 560 011.
(BY SRI. RAVI KIRAN, ADV. FOR SRI. YOUNOUS ALI KHAN, ADV.,) AND:
STATE BY KALASIPALYAM P.S. BENGALURU – 560 002.
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE – 560 001.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.56/2016 OF KALASIPALYAM P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 144, 302, 364, 120B, 109 R/W 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.8 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364, 302 read with 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.56/2016. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence under Sections 143, 144, 302, 364, 120B, 109 read with 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused 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 has submitted that there was a civil dispute in between the deceased and accused No.1. So far as the petitioner is concerned, there is no prima- facie case made out by the prosecution. He also submitted that the Court has already granted bail to accused Nos.1 to 7. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be granted with anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition contending that nearly 1 ½ years the petitioner remained absconding, he was not available to the Investigating Officer during investigation. He has also submitted that serious offence under Sections 364 and 302 of IPC are alleged. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the case. The prosecution material shows that petitioner along with accused No.9 caught hold the deceased and facilitated the other accused persons to assault the deceased and to commit the murder of the deceased.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order of the learned Sessions Judge Begaluru City rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.
6. I have also perused the charge sheet material, petitioner has been shown as absconding accused. Therefore, it shows that from the date of alleged incident till the date of filing charge sheet in the Court of law the petitioner was not available to the Investigating Officer. Looking to the seriousness of the offences alleged in the case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR