IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4432/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI MUKTHIYAR AHMED @ MUKTHIYAR , S/O MOHAMMED FAKRUDIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT ABDULLAH’S HOUSE, 8TH MAIN ROAD, 10TH CROSS, NEXT TO BILAL MASJID, MADEENA NAGARA, MANGAMMANA PALYA, BANGALORE – 560069. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.HARISH KUMAR M.R, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIWALA POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.1765/2014 (S.C.NO.304/2015) OF MADIVALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by accused No.2/petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C to release him on regular bail in Crime No.1765/2011 of Madiwala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code.
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 Accused Nos.1 & 2 are wife and husband, deceased Samiulla is the relative. It is alleged that deceased was having illicit relationship with Accused No.1 and on 02.10.2014 at about 8.30 p.m, when Accused No.2 came to his house, he noticed the illegal affair of Accused No.1 and he suddenly picked up quarrel with the deceased and thereafter, Accused Nos.1 & 2 decided to finish the deceased and with a common intention that they took an old wire and put around his neck and by pressing it, they strangulated and caused the murder and thereafter, body was cut into pieces and taken to different places and after noticing the body, a case has been registered and thereafter, it has been transferred to Madiwala Police Station.
4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no witnesses to the alleged incident and the statement of the witnesses came to be recorded only on 10.10.2014 and that the alleged incident has taken place on 02.10.2014. As such, the said statement is not reliable one. He further submitted that the trial has not been so fast and so as to conclude at an early date, if accused No.2/petitioner is detained in the jail, he will be languishing in the jail without there being any punishment. The detention itself amounts to a punishment in this behalf. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this court and ready to offer sureties.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that this court by order dated 07.04.2015 in Criminal Petition No.1491/2015 by considering the merits of the case has come to the conclusion that there is a prima facie material forthcoming as against accused No.2/petitioner and as such, the Petition has been dismissed. There are no changed circumstances to interfere with the said order. She further submitted that only on the basis of the toes, the body has been identified by the wife and wife has filed the complaint and CW.4 has seen the dead body in the house of the accused. There are circumstances to show that accused No.2/petitioner is involved in the alleged crime. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. This court by order dated 07.04.2015, after considering the facts and materials, it has come to the conclusion that since a prima facie case is forthcoming as against accused No.2/petitioner, petition came to be dismissed against him and bail was granted against accused No.1. Though there are no changed circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial is not expeditiously continued and the case has not been disposed and since 2014, accused No.2/petitioner is languishing in the jail and there are no good grounds to entertain the said petition, but however, a direction can be issued to the Trial Court to expedite the trial.
8. Taking into consideration the above said aspects, Petition is dismissed and the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within an outer limit of six months from the receipt of this order.
SD/- JUDGE cbc