IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8457/2017 BETWEEN:
MUBARAK @ ALIM KHAN S/O MOHAMMED GHOUS KHAN AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO: 147, 3RD MAIN, SLUM QUARTERS, LASHMIDEVI NAGAR, LAGGARE, BANGALORE-560085.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.V. LAKSHMIKANTH RAO, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMBALAGODU P.S.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.191/2016 OF KUMBALAGUDU P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 114, 120B 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.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 114, 143, 147, 148, 302, read with 149 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.191/2016.
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 the name of the petitioner is not figured either in the complaint or in the FIR, but it is only during the course of investigation, that too, basing on the statement of accused No.1, petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused in the case. He also submitted that accused Nos.5 and 6 have already been granted bail by the order of this Court and he produced the copy of the said order. He has further submitted that since one year seven months petitioner is in custody. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the prosecution material there are eye-witnesses to the incident, whose statements have been recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer. He drew the attention of this Court to paragraph No.10 of the bail order passed by the Court below and submitted that the trial Court observed regarding the statement of C.Ws.3 to 7, who have clearly stated in their statements against the petitioner, hence, there is a prima-facie material against the petitioner. Therefore, in view of this prima-facie material, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
6. It is true, in the complaint as well as in the FIR the name of the petitioner is not figured, but subsequently he has been arrayed as accused No.4 in the case. I have also perused the order passed by this Court dated 07.03.2017 passed in respect of accused Nos.5 and 6 passed in Crl.P.9756/2016, wherein at paragraph No.5 it is observed that the overt-acts alleged against the petitioners is that they were ‘hugging and holding the victim’, whilst accused Nos.3 and 4 assaulted the victim. It is reasonable to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of petitioners that the injuries described at Nos.6 and 7 could not have been inflicted if the allegations are correct and accordingly, this Court allowed the said petition.
7. But so far as petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned, the prosecution material collected during investigation by way of statement of eye-witnesses shows the involvement of petitioner in committing the alleged offence and causing the injuries to the deceased. Therefore, the bail order passed in respect of accused Nos.5 and 6 will not come to the aid and assistance of petitioner herein, in view of the specific allegations against the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that prosecution placed prima-facie material about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since one year seven months petitioner is in custody, the concerned Sessions Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the main case as early as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR