Allowed

Wazid Patel S/O Late Patel and Anr. v. the State

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2016CRL.P/200626/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC for two accused in a murder case. The court observed no overt acts were alleged and held that absence of incriminating material negated prima facie involvement, granting bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners directed to furnish self-bond of Rs. 40,000/- each with surety and comply with bail conditions.

Wazid Patel S/O Late Patel and Anr. Vs the State — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200626 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Wazid Patel S/o Ladle Patel Age: 21 years, Occupation: Car Driver, Residents of Saidapur, Taluk: Jewargi, Now at Doddagundi Layout, Near Nagareshwar Temple, Heerapur, Kalaburagi. (Accused No.2 as per Charge Sheet)

¶9

Saddam S/o Pashamiya Age: 24 years, Occupation: Welding, Residents of Near Raja Baksha Darga, Heerapur, Kalaburagi. (Accused No.3 as per Charge Sheet)

¶10

… PETITIONERS

¶11

(Shri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

The State Through Grameen Police Station, Kalaburagi (By Additional State Public Prosecutor)

¶15

… RESPONDENT

¶16

(Shri P.S. Patil, Government Pleader)

¶17

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to allow the petition and petitioners may kindly be enlarged on bail in Crime No.22/2016 of respondent Gameen Police Station Kalaburagi, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504, 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶18

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶21

Government Pleader.

¶22

The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.2 and 3 as per

¶23

the charge-sheet. It transpires that Accused No.1 and the deceased had running enmity between them and it is also stated that the

¶24

¶25

accused had filed a criminal case against the deceased and in this regard, the deceased had approached Accused No.1 for a compromise and at that point of time, a quarrel had broken out between them and it transpires that the complainant sought to intervene and it is alleged that petitioners and others tried to prevent him and in the process, Accused No.1 had stabbed the deceased, resulting in his death. On the basis of the complaint that the petitioners are also involved along with Accused No.1, though in fact as two accomplices who were named in the FIR have been dropped from the charge sheet. However, the present petitioners have been arrayed as the accused, which is totally inexplicable, as the complaint is bereft of any allegations of commission of any overt acts by the present petitioners.

¶26

The learned Government Pleader would also submit that the complaint does not indeed contain any allegations or overt acts against the present petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they were mere bystanders and had

¶27

¶28

no connection with Accused No.1 or the deceased and it is by misfortune that they have been named in these proceedings.

¶29

Given the above circumstances, the petitioners have been

¶30

denied bail by the court below only on the ground that there is a death and since there are serious allegations against the accused and the possibility of the present petitioners also being the accomplises of Accused No.1. In the face of the circumstance that no overt acts are alleged against the petitioners and in the absence of any incriminating material to indicate that the petitioners had any contact with the petitioner No.1, it cannot be said that a prima facie case of their involvement is made out, except that they may have been present in the scene, which is a public place.

¶31

Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are held entitled to be enlarged on bail subject the following conditions:

¶32

Each of the petitioners shall furnish a self-bond for a sum of `40,000/- with a surety for a likesum each, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶33

¶34

The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court

¶35

below, without the leave of the court.

¶36

The petitioners shall offer all co-operation with the

¶37

investigation of the offence.

¶38

They shall not in any manner, seek to tamper with the

¶39

prosecution evidence.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Wazid Patel S/O Late Patel and Anr. v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wazid Patel S/O Late Patel and Anr. v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanta Vs Mahantesha

Basanna Vs Devendrappa

Praveen S/O Basavaraj Sappanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Satish @ Satya @ Market Satya Vs the State through

Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd. Ors. Vs Smt. Ramakka @ Ramalamma W/O Late Malli and Ors.

Honnappa S/O Hanmanth Battar Vs the State through