IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7063/2018 BETWEEN NAYAZULLA @ NAYAZ S/O MOHAMMED SHAFIULLA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.734, 2ND CROSS R R HEGDE NAGAR DR. SHIVARAM KARANTH NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560064 (BY SRI ANEES ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE) AND ... PETITIONER STATE BY SAMPIGEHALLI P S BANGALORE-560077 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 (BY SRI H.S. CHANDRAMAULI, SPP) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.75/2017 OF SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SS.302 R/W SEC.120(B) OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to release him on bail in S.C. No.531/2018 pending on the file of the LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57) Crime No.75/2017 of Sampigehalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(b) of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 03.05.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., when the complainant along with his younger son Haleem Ulla Khan had reached the office of his son, his son went to the 1st floor and after 10-15 minutes, two unknown persons came there, stopped their bike and asked the complainant that they wanted to speak to his son Haleem and when Haleem Ulla asked them to come upstairs, they went there. After some time the complainant heard shouts and quarrels from his son’s office thereafter the two persons came down and went away. Immediately the complainant went and saw that his son is suffering with injuries, immediately he shifted his son to Regal Hospital, later to Baptist Hospital and on 11.05.2017 his son succumbed to the injuries.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier a complaint was registered against unknown persons and subsequently the charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 15. He further submitted that earlier the petitioner has approached this Court in Crl.P. No.7922/2017, but, at that time it was crime stage and the charge sheet material has not been properly perused at that time when the said criminal petition has been heard and decided. Subsequently the bail application has been filed in Crl.P.3763/2018 which came to be dismissed only on the ground that no changed circumstances have been made to entertain the second petition. It is his submission that no proper representation has been made and all the facts have not been brought before the Court and as such, the present petition has been filed. He further submitted that there is delay in filing the complaint. Earlier the complaint was registered under Section 307 IPC and subsequently Section 302 has been incorporated. He further submitted that no test identification parade has been conducted as contemplated under the law. If no test identification parade is done it cannot point the guilty of the accused. He further submitted that already accused No.3 has been released on bail, hence, on the ground of parity the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned SPP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner has already approached this Court in Crl.P.No.7922/2017 and by order dated 09.01.2018 the same was dismissed and subsequent also he has approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3763/2018. The said petition also came to be dismissed on 13.07.2018 holding that no changed circumstances have been brought. The petitioner has successively filed the petitions and all the petitioners have been dismissed by considering the merits of the case. He further submitted that though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge sheet was not available, but the charge sheet was filed on 31.07.2017 and the bail application has been ordered on 09.01.2018. Even the bail order clearly goes to show that all charge sheet material has been looked into and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. He further submitted that the petitioner is seriously involved in a crime which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no ground to entertain the petition, therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the parties and also perused the records, including the contents of the complaint.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased died due to septic shock and failure of multiple organs on account of the injuries sustained and there is direct nexus between the assault and the death. It is further submitted that the injured died because of complexity in his body and not due to the assault. But as could be seen from the post mortem report which clearly states that the death was due to septic shock and multiple organ failure of consequential injuries and it goes to show that because of the injuries which has been sustained he has succumbed to the injuries. Even as could be seen from the records, all the grounds urged in this petition has already been considered by this Court in Crl.P.No.7922/2017 by order dated 09.01.2018. At that time the charge sheet material was also available and by considering the charge sheet material the Court has taken the view that there is prima facie material against the petitioner and the alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Even, the subsequent petition i.e. Crl.P. No.3763/2018 came to be dismissed on 13.07.2018 by holding that the petitioner has not made out any changed circumstance to entertain the second petition. When already the material has been discussed and view has been taken, this Court cannot overlook the said orders. In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I feel that the petitioner has not made out any ground to release him on bail.
8. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the matter.
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*