IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3215/2019 BETWEEN:
Mohammed Waseem @ Kaleem, S/o Mohammed Zaheer, Aged about 24 years, R/a No.257, 7th Cross, Masjid Road, Yarabnagar, Bengaluru – 560 070.
(By Sri.Srinivasa C., Advocate for Sri.K.N. Narayana Swamy, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, Represented by the Station House Officer, Banashankari Police Station, Rep. by SPP, HCK, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.47/2019 of Banashankari Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The complainant is the mother-in-law of the alleged victim Sri.Syed Aslam. In her complaint dated 11.03.2019, she has stated that her son-in-law i.e., Sri.Syed Aslam was an auto rickshaw driver and he had quarrel with the present petitioner – Kaleem, a week prior to the date of the complaint with respect to head-phone. In that regard, the said Kaleem had approached the house of the complainant and put life threat to the victim. That being the case, on 10.03.2019, at about 10.00 p.m., one Sri.Parvez, a friend of Sri.Syed Aslam- the victim, telephoned her informing that on the same night at about 09.30 p.m., near Banashankari bus stand, the said Kaleem (petitioner) joined by others have assaulted the Sri.Syed Aslam with a knife and inflicted several injuries upon him. However, public rescued the injured and that he shifted the injured to the hospital. The complainant rushed to the hospital and found the injured victim in the ICU. The said complaint was registered in the respondent police station in Crime No.47/2019 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘IPC’).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the complaint is an exaggerated version of simple altercation. Both the accused and victim are not only friends but also relatives and are very much interested in living in a cordial harmony. He submits that the alleged incident has not occurred as depicted in the complaint. As such, the petition be considered favourably.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that admittedly, the accused and victim were known to each other even prior to the incident. He also submits that the police have recorded the statement of victim, who has attributed direct overt-act against the petitioner as the one, who stabbed him and caused several injuries with the help of a knife. In that circumstance, since the investigation is also in progress, enlargement of accused on anticipatory bail is not warranted.
4. The complaint, as well the statement of the victim go to show that the victim and petitioner/accused were known to each other even prior to the incident. According to complainant, with respect to a head-phone there was altercation between the victim and the petitioner. The informant to the complainant claims himself to be the person, who had shifted the injured to the hospital, able to get him minimum medical treatment. A copy of the statement said to have been given by the injured before the police in the presence of the doctor in the hospital go to show that the alleged victim has also attributed direct overt-act against the present petitioner Kaleem of having stabbed him with a knife on his abdomen, chest and hand. The victim is also shown to have stated that it is because of the intervention of public, otherwise, he would have been killed by the accused. Thus, the statement of the victim, that too, stated to have given in the hospital in the presence of the doctor to a police officer cannot be totally discarded at this stage. Moreover, the investigation is said to be in progress. As such, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the enlargement of the accused on the relief of bail may hamper the case cannot be ignored. For these reasons, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-