IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3543 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
AYAZ, S/O SAIFULLA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.409, 2ND CROSS, ANANDAPURA, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE – 560002. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. LUBNA H.S.ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DILRAJ ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE, BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ROHITH B.J, HCGP) **** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.334/2015 OF CHAMRAJPET P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 143, 144, 148, 341, 114, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Perused the records.
The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.9 in the original charge sheet filed by the respondent police which later culminated in to SC No.541/2016. The learned LXII Additional District City Civil and Sessions Judge has split up the case against this petitioner and proceeded against accused Nos.1 to 5 and 8 vide judgment dated 23.8.2018 those accused persons were acquitted. As this petitioner was not available to the trial Court, a split up charge sheet was filed in CC No.23025/2015 by the respondent police for the offence under Sections 143, 144, 148, 120(B), 341, 114, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the accused Nos.1 to 8 on 18.11.2015 have hatched a conspiracy and particularly in the night at about 9 p.m. all the above said accused persons joined themselves and formed into an unlawful assembly near Nijammuddin Mahal near the Chicken shop of M N Broiler and in fact assaulted the deceased and due to the injuries sustained he succumbed to the injuries later. As could be seen from the entire charge sheet papers there is absolutely no mention of the name of this petitioner, much less any role assigned to him.
4. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner in my opinion is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence the following order.
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.334/2015 of Chamarajpet Police Station, for the alleged offences pending in CC.No.23025/2015 before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the jurisdictional Court within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates without fail.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru City, without prior permission, for a period of three months.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl