IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8568/2017 BETWEEN:
Syed Sifghatha Ulla S/o. Syed Mahboob Aged about 28 years, Occ: Working as Labour In Sign Board Manufacturer R/at No.4110, 2nd Cross, 2nd Stage, Kumara Swamy Layout, Bangalore-560 078. .. Petitioner ( By Sri Vinayaka S. Koti, Advocate ) AND:
State of Karnataka, SPP, Rep.by Jayanagara Police Station, Bangalore-560 041. .. Respondent ( By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP ) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.307/2016 of Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru and in C.C.No.10783/2017 pending on the file of II Addl.CMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B), 114, 143, 144, 147 and 148 r/w. 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.8 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B), 114, 143, 144, 147, 148 r/w.
Section 149 of IPC, registered in respondent police station in Crime No.307/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.8 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that by looking to the entire charge sheet materials, no prima facie case is made out as against the petitioner/accused No.8. Even with regard to the allegation of the prosecution that he was holding deadly weapon and caused injury to CW-3, the learned counsel made the submission that looking to the injury certificate, there is no corresponding injury as alleged by the prosecution.
Hence, he submitted that there is a false implication of the present petitioner in the case. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition making the submission that continuously from the date of the incident, till filing of the charge sheet, petitioner remained absconding and was not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation. It is also submitted that three witnesses i.e., CWs.2, 3 and 4, were spoken about the presence of petitioner/accused No.8 at the spot and also the assault made to CW-3 holding deadly weapon. He also submitted that the weapon is to be recovered. Therefore, it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also other materials produced in the case and the statement of witnesses and voluntary statement of accused No.1.
6. Looking to the statement of witnesses, the incident took place on 13.11.2016. The statement of CW-4 is recorded on the very next date of the incident i.e., on 14.11.2016, who has spoken about the participation of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. The other two witnesses viz., CWs.2 and 3 have also spoken about his presence and his participation in the said act. There is an allegation that he assaulted CW-3 with deadly weapon and even the statement of witnesses goes to show that other accused persons were taking the name of the present petitioner for the purpose of fleeing away from the said place. Looking to the materials, serious offences like murder, attempt to murder under the provisions of the IPC, so also under the Arms Act, are alleged against the accused persons. Therefore, when the allegation is that from the date of the incident, till the completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, petitioner remained absconding, it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail as the custodial interrogation is necessary.
Accordingly, the Petition is hereby rejected.
At this stage, the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.8 made the submission that petitioner is prepared to surrender before the concerned Court. If he surrenders and make an application seeking regular bail, the concerned Court is directed to consider the said application on priority basis and to dispose of the same on merits, if possible on the same day.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/