IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10092 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SYED JAVEED @ KALA JAVEED S/O DADAPEER AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.340, YARAB MOSQUE 2ND STAGE, KALYANAGIRI MYSURU – 577 201 MYSURU DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ALANAHALLY POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.69/2017 OF ALNAHALY P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 323, 341 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.69/2017.
2. The compliant in this case came to be registered on 3.8.2017 at 5.30, by Mohamed Ibrahim for the death of one Zuhera Mirza. At the first instance, the complaint in Crime No.69/2017 was registered against Sabbir, Mithesh and others. However, the final report was filed against 6 persons. Insofar as the sequence of events is concerned they are culled out from the orders passed by the learned District Judge in Crl.Misc.No.2294/2017, dated 21.11.2017.
“The allegations as per the charge sheet are that the deceased and CW10 were working under 1st accused and CW7 and during the said work they caused huge loss in the said business and in addition they had borrowed Rs.3,00,000/- from the 3rd accused which they did not repay and were absconding. Enraged by this, accused 1 to 3 had ill-will against deceased and CW10. In this background it is alleged that in the intervening night of 2/3.8.2017 at 12.00 mid night, the deceased was standing in front of the house of 6th accused in order to take the vehicle from 3rd accused and seeing him so standing, accused 1 to 3 in order to kill him, called accused 4 and 5 to the spot i.e. 3rd accused brought them in two wheeler bearing registration No.KA-05/EN- 4681 and thereafter, it is alleged that 1st accused assaulted the deceased with plastic wire to which an iron rod was tied and 2nd accused assaulted the deceased with a stone and accused 3 to 6 assaulted deceased with their hands as a result of which deceased collapsed and subsequently succumbed to his injuries. With these allegations the respondent police have filed charge sheet for offences under Sections 302, 323, 341 read with Section 149 IPC.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was unnecessarily roped in the case. Further, his name did not figure in the FIR. It is submitted that the financial transactions and default in repayment are the reasons stated for the vengeance and the cause for murder of Zuhera Mirza. It is stated that originally the car belonged to the complainant and was used by Zuhera Mirza for personal purpose. Thereafter, Zuhera Mirza had given the car to Sohail. Later, the car was taken away by Ashok. On 2.8.2017, when the complainant and Zuhera Mirza went to Manasinagar, Mysuru, there was a quarrel between Sabeer and Mithesh. Other accused persons arrived to the spot and thereafter assaulted Zuhera Mirza. There is no specific allegations against the present petitioner, therefore, the learned counsel submitted to enlarge the petitioner on bail by imposing certain conditions.
4. The learned HCGP contended that there was rivalry among the accused and Zuhera Mirza and the accused persons are said to have attacked Zuhera Mirza black and blue. Due to the assault, Zuhera Mirza sustained serious injuries and later succumbed. The petitioner is said to have been arrested on 4.8.2017 and the final report is filed.
5. In the set of circumstances, it is suggested that the petitioner, who was arrested on 4.8.2017, is in judicial custody and the investigation has been completed. Thus, it does not appear that there is likelihood of interference by the petitioner in the investigation and no prejudice is caused to the case of justice if he is enlarged on bail. The apprehensions of the prosecution can be met by imposing conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 341 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in Crime No.69/2017, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner has to execute a personal bond for `2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
(iii) He has to mark attendance before the Investigating Officer on every second and fourth Saturday, till the examination of CWs.1 and 2.
(iv) He shall not leave Mysuru district without the prior permission of the Committal Magistrate, till committal and thereafter the learned Trial Judge.
Sd/- JUDGE AHB