IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7383/2018 Between:
Saddam @ Syed Saddam Hussain S/o Ahmad Miya Aged about 27 years No.1985, Jeevanapura Channapatna Town-562 160 Ramanagara District. ...Petitioner (By Sri Anees Ali Khan, Advocate) And:
State by Channapatna East Police Station – 562 160.
Represented by:
The State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka High Court Buildings Bengaluru. ...Respondent (By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.127/2017 of Channapatna East Police Station, Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) R/w 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 has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking to release him on bail in Crime No.127/2017 of Channapatna East Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that:
The complainant’s daughter got married and subsequently, there was ill-treatment and harassment and demand of dowry by the in-laws of his daughter and as such, complaint was lodged. It is further alleged that the complainant’s son Faizal and Saddam, Nazim, Wasim and Abu all are friends and there was a case against Saddam earlier to the alleged incident. Saddam had earlier taken the complainant’s son to the place of quarrel. On 20.09.2017, there was a quarrel between the son of complainant and Nadu, Muzamil, Nazim and others. The complainant took his son and kept him in a different house. It is further alleged that Saddam came to the house of the complainant and searched complainant’s son. It is further alleged that on 21.09.2017, the complainant noticed that his son was being troubled by the above said accused persons, he went to inform to the police at about 12.30 p.m. At that time, younger brother of the complainant called him over the phone and told that Saddam, Naddu, Muzamil Pasha, Nazim quarreled with complainant’s son and Naddu assaulted on the chest with a dangerous weapon and Muzamil with dangerous weapon hit on the hand and ran away. Upon receipt of the information, the complainant went to the spot and noticed that his son was lying in the pool of blood. Thereafter, a complaint was filed and a case came to be registered. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 that the petitioner/accused No.3 is innocent and he is not involved in the alleged crime. The charge sheet has been filed. Accused No.2 under the similar facts and circumstances has been released on bail. Even on the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused No.3 is entitled to be released on bail. He further submits that the only allegation in the charge sheet made as against the petitioner herein is that he was holding the deceased and at that time, the accused No.1 stabbed on the chest of the deceased and no other allegations are there. He further submits that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.3 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that there is a clear material to show that the petitioner/accused No.3 has also involved in the serious offence and committed murder of the deceased. He further submits that there is a specific overt act of the petitioner/accused No.3 that with common intention, he tried to assault the deceased and the deceased brought the hand to protect himself from the assault. He further submits that he was also present at the place of occurrence of the alleged crime and there is ample materials to show that the petitioner herein has been involved in the alleged crime. If the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witness or he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and the statement of eye witnesses at CWs.1 to 6 and perused the records 7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and charge sheet materials, it indicates that petitioner/accused No.3 and accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased and at that time, it is accused No.1 who assaulted with lethal weapons on the chest of the deceased and as a result of the same, he has fallen down and succumbed to the injuries. Even as could be seen from the record, already accused No.2 has already been released on bail under the similar circumstances in Crl.P.No.1856/2018 vide order dated 06.04.2018. Even on the ground of parity, petitioner herein is entitled to be released on bail.
8. Though during the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that petitioner/accused No.3 is involved in many case but in order to substantiate the said fact no materials produced except referring the order of the trial Court. Under such circumstances, by imposing some stringent conditions, if petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail, it meets the ends of justice.
9. In that light, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.3 is enlarged on bail in S.C.No.58/2018 on the file of III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara (Crime No.127/2017 of Channapatna East Police Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 120(B) R/w 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:-
1. Petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police.
4. He shall not tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
5. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly in any manner.
In view of disposal of the petition and as there is no representation on behalf of the impleading applicant, I.A.No.1/2018 is disposed of as it does not survive for consideration.
Sd/- JUDGE nms