IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.8834/2018 BETWEEN:
Nadeem Ahmed S/o Late Anwar Baig, Aged about 23 years, R/at No.2, Indira Cottage, Satnoor Road Cross, Channapatna Town and Taluk, Ramanagara District-571 501. …Petitioner (By Sri R. Shashidhara, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Channapatna East Police Station, Ramanagara District, 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 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime.No.25/2018 of Channapatna East Police Station, Ramanagara for the offence punishable under Section 302 R/w 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.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C to release him on regular bail in Crime No.25/2018 in Channapatna East Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 21.07.2018, when the complainant was in his house, his friend one Zakeer came and informed that his elder brother was murdered by unknown persons by cutting his neck near the Kappa bushes, Lalaghatta Road. Immediately, the complainant along with his friend went to the spot and noticed the dead body of his brother and they enquired one Mr. Ajgar and he told them that at about 6.00 p.m., when his brother was in auto stand at Indira Cottage, Accused No.1-Nadeem and Accused No.2- Nawaz took him by saying that they wanted to talk with him personally. It is further alleged in the complaint that on the previous night i.e. on 20.07.2018, during the night hours, some unknown persons have burnt the ACE vehicle of accused No.1 and in turn, petitioner-accused No.1 thought that Wasim would have burnt the said vehicle. In order to take revenge, petitioner-accused No.1 took the deceased and thereafter assaulted by slitting the neck and evacuated the evidence. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged incident rests on the circumstantial evidence alone. The charge sheet has already been filed and even in the complaint filed by the brother of the deceased goes to show that Ajgar, who is a resident of Indira Cottage has informed that the accused persons with an earlier ill-will, took the deceased along with them to the spot and Ajgar is not examined by the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that there is only circumstantial evidence on which the prosecution is relying upon and no material to substantiate the said fact. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any of the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety, if he is released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that it is Ajgar and PW2 have seen accused taking the deceased by petitioner-accused No.1 and others with them and even PW4 has also re-iterated the said statement. PW5 and others have also seen that the deceased and accused were fighting near Lalghatta road on 21.07.2018 at about 8:15 p.m and immediately, thereafter alleged offence has taken place and brutal murder of the deceased has been committed by petitioner-accused No.1. She further submitted that the two wheelers which have been used for the purpose of committing offence and dragger which was stained with blood have been seized at the instance of petitioner-accused No.1.
6. On these circumstances, it is strongly proved that the petitioner-accused No.1 is involved in the alleged offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the petitioner-accused No.1 is not entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds she prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
8. On clean reading of the charge sheet material clearly go to show that there are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. Though the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence, only on that ground, Court cannot release the petitioner on bail. The Court is duty bound to look into the other materials to see as to whether prima-facie material has been made out by the prosecution to establish the fact that petitioner-accused No.1 is involved in the alleged offence. However, the prosecution has also got examined that PWs 2, 4, 5 and 6 who have informed and categorically stated that accused persons have taken the deceased and they were fighting at the place of the incident. Thereafter, the neck of the deceased has been slit and brutally have murdered and thereby they committed the offence. In this behalf, there are ample materials to show that whether the petitioner- accused No.1 is involved in a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
9. I am conscious of the fact that the case is lying on the circumstantial evidence but as per the records it is seen that the two wheeler and dragger which was stained with blood is recovered at the instance of petitioner- accused No.1. Even there is no specific allegation but it seems that there are serious allegations and prosecution has also got examined PWs 2, 4, 5 and 6 who have deposed about the fight between the deceased and the accused persons. There is serious allegation of the involvement of the petitioner-accused in the alleged offence.
In view of the discussions had above, I feel that it is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail. Hence, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HA/-