IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7193/2017 Between:
1. Shabbir Pasha @ Shabbir Ahmed S/o Zaheer Ahmed Aged about 39 years Working in Automobile Show room R/at No.47, 2nd Main, 2nd Cross Tippu Nagar, Mysore Road Bangalore- 560 018.
2. Afroz S/o Syed Anwar @ Javid Aged about 23 years Working in Pvt Firm Marketing staff R/at 10, 5th Cross Padrayanpura Bangalore- 560 039.
(By Sri Mohammed Tahir, Adv.) And State by Chamarajpet Police Represented by State Public Prosecutor ...Petitioners High Court Complex Building Bengaluru- 560 001.
(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) ...Respondent This Crl.P is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.188/2016 of Chamarajpet Police Station, Bangalore for the offence p/u/s 143, 147, 323, 307, 504 r/w 149 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 10 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 307, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.188/2016.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that on 28.09.2016 at about 7.30 p.m., Shaik Babajan and others, as mentioned in the FIR, were the members of the Social Democratic Party of India, assembled near the Tippu Nagar, Mysore Road to conduct public awareness program, at that time, the first informant objected them by stating that they had taken permission from the local mosque committee members to conduct program. The said accused persons replied that it is public awareness program and for such program permission is not required and can be done in any place. Due to this obstruction by the first informant, the above named persons alleged to formed group and attacked the first informant by hockey stick, rod and stick on his head with the intention to kill. Babajan hit him from the hokey stick on his head, Mohammed Nayaz hit him with hokey stick on his right shoulder and right leg, Shabbir Pasha assaulted one Abbas by iron rod, Alim Khan hit one Syed Khalil on his right hand by stick, Syed Nayaz hit Syed Khalil on his body by stick, Zabiullah and Afroz have assaulted Kalim, Babu, Rabbu and Jishan. On the basis of the said allegations made in the complaint, case came to be registered for said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.3 & 10 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments made submission that there are case and counter case. On the side of the petitioners, a complaint came to be registered in Cr.No.187/2016. Hence, it is submission of the learned counsel that in order to take defence and to avoid consequences of the registration of the crime, the complainant and his party men filed the false complaint against the petitioners herein. Learned counsel also made submission that regarding the ranking of the present petitioners, there is wrong description in the prosecution material. Hence, he submitted that there is no question of absconding of present petitioners. Hence, he submitted that even looking in the wound certificate, the injuries said to have been sustained are simple in nature. He has also submitted that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, looking to the prosecution materials there are injured witnesses in the case and they have consistently stated in their statements about the involvement of these petitioners in committing the offence. However, he submitted that the injuries sustained are simple in nature. Now, the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is filed. However, it is submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader that since the petitioners remained absconding, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioners, so also, the other materials placed on record.
7. I have gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. The material goes to show that even earlier to registration of the crime in this case, the petitioners lodged a complaint against the complainant and others, which came to be registered in Cr.No.187/2016. The petitioners contended that they are innocent of the offence. It is also their submission that regarding the ranking shown in the prosecution material, it was wrongly shown. Hence, it is their contention that they are not absconded. Looking to these materials, as the investigation is completed and the alleged injuries are simple in nature and the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC, which is major offence in this case, it is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners/ accused No.3 & 10 on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 307, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent-Police station Crime No.188/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners have to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each and have to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.
iv. The petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bonds and the surety bonds.
Sd/- JUDGE DL