IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8480/2018 BETWEEN:
Saddam Hussain, S/o Zakir Hussain, Aged about 20 years, Residing at No.15, F1, 4th Main, 4th Cross, Gangondahalli, Chandra layout, Bangalore-560 040. (By Sri.Moyeenulla Abbasi, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka By Byatarayanapura Police Station Bangalore Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, ...Petitioner Bangalore-560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.136/2018 registered by Byatarayanapura police station, Bengaluru and in S.C.No.1187/2018 pending on the file of LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal 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- petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C to release him on bail in Crime No.136/2018 registered by Bytarayanapura Police Station, (S.C.No.1187/2018) pending on the file of LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for respondent- State.
3. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that complainant is working as Head Constable. On 12.04.2018, when he was on patrolling duty at about 11.30 pm he saw one dead body of unknown person and also noticed injuries over the body. Immediately he reported same to the police and case has been registered. Subsequently, during the course of investigation it is found that accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked the deceased-Rahul @ Siddesha in order to commit robbery of mobile. After committing robbery of mobile from the deceased, the accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with knife and caused grievous injuries. After investigation charge-sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that initially case has been registered against unknown persons and subsequently, on 13.04.2018 the statement of accused No.1 is recorded. He further submitted that when CW13 has given his statement on the same day and further statement on 20.04.2018 and there is consistency with regard to factual situation is concerned. He has not stated the vehicle number and other details on 20.04.2018. He further submitted that by referring to the sketch there is no bus stand at the place of alleged incident. He further submitted that he has also no injuries over the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that near the place of alleged incident there a Quality Biscuit Factory and Security is there, therein CCTV camera also fixed. During the course of investigation, no CCTV footage has been collected so as to ascertain the truth of the case. He further submits that the statement of CW8, if it is looked into, it clearly goes to show that the said witness has been planked by the police to connect the petitioner in the said crime. He further submitted that accused is languishing in the jail for more than one year and already charge-sheet has been filed. Continuation of the accused in the judicial custody is not necessary. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State argued that CW8-Raghavendra is an eye witness to the alleged incident and he has categorically stated that it is accused No.1 who attacked the deceased with an intention to rob the mobile and as a result, the deceased succumbed injuries. He further submits that the knife used for commission of the offence has been recovered at the instance of the accused and also two mobiles and amount which was stolen. He further submits that there are ample materials to connect the accused to the alleged crime. He further submits that even post mortem report clearly goes to show that the deceased died due to stab injuries. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I carefully and consciously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. It is well settled preposition of law that at the time of considering the bail application, the Court cannot hold mini trial to come to the conclusion that whether accused has committed alleged offence or not and has to consider whether there is any prima-facie material to connect the accused to the alleged crime. CW8 is an eye witness to the alleged incident and has categorically stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 attacked the deceased with an intention to rob the mobile and at that time accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with knife. Subsequently, knife has been recovered at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2 along with mobile phones.
8. In the instant case, without expressing any opinion on the comments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel it is not a fit case to release the petitioner-accused on bail.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SB/-