IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 1409/2019 BETWEEN NOORULLA SHARIF S/O AMANULLA SHARIF AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT NO.4 MOULI HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR M K APARTMETN, 9TH MAIN GURAPPANPALYA BANGALORE – 560 029 PERMANENT RESIDENT OF # 10 2ND CROSS, 8TH MAIN NEW GURAPPANPALYA BANGALORE – 560 029 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. RANGANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. C. MOHAMMED PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REP BY SPP HIGH COURT CAMPUS BANGALORE – 560 001 …. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.215/2018 OF SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 302 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (A2) and the learned HCGP for the Respondent –State. Perused the records.
2. Learned HCGP furnishes the FSL Report in connection with this case.
3. The police have laid the charge sheet against the petitioner, who is arraigned as Accused No.2 on the allegations that, the deceased-Sheik Vali had taken the mobile of the petitioner (A2) and therefore, there was quarrel between them on 23.07.2018 in Trupti Bar situated at S.G. Palya Main Road, Bengaluru; At that time, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were present in the bar and they consumed alcohol till 11.30 p.m.; Thereafter, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 kicked and assaulted Sheik Vali and taken him in an autorikshaw bearing No.KA.01.AF.7717 to Diary Circle, where Accused Nos. 1 and 2 de-boarded the auto along with the deceased and Accused No.3 caught hold the deceased and Accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with machete and Accused No.2 assaulted the deceased with an iron rod on his head and other vital parts of his body, as a result of which Sheik Vali died on the spot.
4. The allegations made against this petitioner (A2) are that, he was holding an iron rod and also assaulted on the head and face of the deceased and while Accused Nos. 1 & 2 assaulting the deceased, Accused No.3 was holding the deceased tightly to enable Accused Nos. 1 & 2 to assault the deceased. On these allegations, the police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner (A2) has strenuously submitted that, the circumstantial evidence is available and though eyewitnesses are available, but their statement was recorded after eleven days of the incident and after recovering the CC-TV footages in the said Trupti Bar, it is stated that CWs. 8 to 10 are said to have been working in the said Trupti Bar and they have seen the accused and the deceased at that time. The recovery is also from a public place, which is open to one and all and though the blood stained clothes of Accused No.2 were said to have been seized, that circumstance alone is not sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case to draw any inference of guilt against the accused persons. The learned counsel also submitted that, the circumstantial evidence in the case is a matter of right, therefore, the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. On perusal of the entire charge sheet papers and FSL report produced by the learned HCGP and on hearing him, it is noticed that, there is strong evidence against the petitioner (A2) to show that the accused and the deceased were last seen together quarrelling with each other and Accused Nos. 1 to 3 lifting the deceased in an autorikshaw, took him to the house of Accused No.1 and immediately thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of Accused No.1 with grievous injuries all over the body of the deceased and during the course of the investigation, the police have recovered an iron rod and blood-stained clothes of the petitioner (A2), which are specifically marked at Item Nos. 7, 8 & 9 and it matches with the blood group of the deceased. The material indicates that almost all the injuries found on the dead body are chap injuries and the multiple contusions and abrasions are caused with iron rod. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner (A2) might not have been intended to commit the murder of the deceased, but at present the overt-acts of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be bifurcated, since both of them said to have assaulted the deceased indiscriminately with iron- rod and chopper. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that who actually caused the death of the deceased. Since there is strong material available against the petitioner (A2), in my opinion, the petitioner (A2) is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*