IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3171/2019 BETWEEN SYED NADEEM @ CHUVI S/O SYED AMEER AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.10, 2ND CROSS UMAR FAROQ MASJID LANE MUNIGOWDA GARDEN NEELASANDRA BANGALORE-560 047 (SOLE ACCUSED IS IN JC) ... PETITIONER (BY SRIRAJESH RAI K, ADVOCATE) AND STATE BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.127/2017 (S.C.NO.1402/2017) OF ADUGODI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 396,302 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the records.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that a lady by name Gajalakshmi, aged about 65 years was running a scrap business shop opposite to Sunshine School located in Samathanagara, Bengaluru, was murdered on 16.06.2017 in the said shop itself. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused, on the particular day, in order to grab money from the deceased could have entered into the shop of the deceased, assaulted her with an iron object and took away the money which was with the said deceased. The police, after investigation found that the petitioner herein was the person who actually committed the said offence. On the above said allegations, the police have laid a charge sheet and submitted the same before the Court. During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statement of one Deepak Sha, who is said to be an eyewitness to the incident but he is not the actual eyewitness. He has stated that on 16.06.2017 at about 3.45 a.m. on early hours when he was in Sulabh Shouchalaya he heard a screaming voice from the opposite scrap shop; immediately when he rushed to the spot he saw the accused who was running away from the spot with a iron object in his hand and he saw the face of the accused in the street light and thereafter he identified the accused in the police station.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends before the Court that the statement of the above said witness is an after thought and it is concocted by the Investigating Officer because there is no mention of the presence of the witness either in the inquest proceedings or in the spot mahazar. It is only an information given by him. Therefore, whether witness statement was recorded earlier to the inquest however is also not known. So, doubtful circumstance is there and on that ground the petition cannot be allowed.
4. Merely some doubt is occurred as to whether the statement was recorded immediately after the investigation, there is no reason for this Court to overcome the statement of the witness that he rushed to the spot and saw the accused running away with an iron object in his hand and immediately he went the scrap shop and saw the dead body of the deceased.
5. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, prima facie case is made out against the accused. The above said doubt has to be thrashed out during the course of full fledged trial. Though, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail as he has been in custody for more than 1½ years, I feel it is just and necessary to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial itself and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible within a span of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE TL.