Partly allowed

Latif Baba and Anr. v. the State through

Karnataka HC3 Aug 2017CRL.P/200844/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted regular bail to two accused persons (Sirojoddin and Taher Pasha) in a murder and narcotics case under Cr.P.C. S. 439, after finding no specific overt acts against them, while dismissing the bail application of Latif Baba due to serious overt acts alleged against his charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Taher Pasha and Sirojoddin subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/-, reporting conditions, and residence restrictions; bail dismissed for Latif Baba.

Latif Baba and Anr. Vs the State through — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.200844/2017 AND

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200847/2017

¶7

In CRL.P.No.200844/2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

Latif Baba S/o Sadak Ali Age: 20 years, Occ: Labour R/o Mandaknalli Village Tq. & Dist. Bidar

¶10

Taher Pasha S/o Khusheed Miya Age: 22 years, Occ: Collie R/o Khashampur (C) Village Tq. & Dist. Bidar

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

(By Sri Anilkumar Navadagi, Advocate)

¶13

And:

¶14

The State Through Bidar Town Police Station Tq. & Dist. Bidar By Addl. S.P.P. High Court of Karnataka Kalaburagi Bench

¶15

... Respondent

¶16

(By Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petition and enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.55/2017 of Bidar Town Police Station of Dist. Bidar, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), r/w Section 34 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶19

In CRL.P. No.200847/2017

¶20

Between:

¶21

Sirojoddin @ Siraj Uddin S/o Mohd. Fatrusab @ Fathusab Age: 57 years, Occ: Electrical Contractor R/o Mandaknalli Village Tq. & Dist. Bidar Currently R/o.19-2-23/m/1 Kala Pather, Tadban Bahadurpura, Hyderabad State Telangana – 500 064 (By Sri R.S. Lagali, Advocate)

¶22

... Petitioner

¶23

And:

¶24

The State Karnataka Through the Police Sub Inspector Bidar Town Police Station

¶25

Represented by the Addl. State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka

¶26

¶27

Kalaburagi Bench

¶28

(By Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP)

¶29

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to allow this bail petition and thereby release the petitioner on bail in Bidar Town Police Station Crime No.55/2017 pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), r/w Section 34 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶30

These petitions are coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-

¶31

ORDER

¶32

These petitions are filed by the

¶33

petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.55/2017 of Bidar Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) r/w Section 34 IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

¶34

¶35

Genesis of the complaint as per the case of the prosecution are that, the complainant and the deceased-Ramesh were owning 15 acres of land and they have grown sugar cane crop and when they were intending to transport the same for the purpose of distribution, the same has been destroyed by the accused persons. When the deceased questioned them, there was quarrel and the deceased abused the accused persons and in that background, some animosity developed between the accused persons and the deceased and complainant. In that backdrop, on 15.05.2017 at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased-Ramesh received a call on his mobile and left the house on his motorcycle saying that he was going to meet accused No.1-Fayaz Khan. On the same day, at about 10.20 p.m., the complainant received a phone call from nephew Nagesh and he informed that her husband has been murdered near canteen situated at Bidar fort.

¶36

¶37

Immediately, the complainant, said Nagesh and others rushed to the spot and found the dead body of her husband-Ramesh with bleeding injuries to his head and his throat was slit and on enquiry with the security guard, he informed that Fayaz Khan and others have murdered the deceased on account of previous enmity. Therefore, complaint came to be lodged and on the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, petitioners have been arrested and they are in custody.

¶38

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for

¶40

petitioner/accused No.2-Sirojoddin submits that accused No.2-Sirojoddin is innocent and he has not committed any offence alleged against him and he was not present at the place of incident and there are no

¶41

¶42

specific overt-acts alleged against him. There is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence to connect accused No.2-Sirojoddin to the alleged crime. The Police official have roped him only to harass him. He would submit that petitioner-Sirojoddin is a respectable member of the society and he is electrical contractor in Hyderabad. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 5 namely, Latif Baba and Taher Pasha submits that so far as accused No.5-Taher Pasha is concerned, there are no overt-acts and he was not present at the place of incident. He would further contend that petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 5 have been falsely implicated in this case and their names are not appearing either in the FIR or in subsequent records. They have been arrested on 20.05.2017 and 25.05.2017 respectively. He would contend that petitioners have got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of they being absconded. If the petitioners are released on bail, they

¶43

¶44

are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and they are ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶45

On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that there are four eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The eyewitnesses have specifically stated in their statements that accused No.1-Fayaz Khan has assaulted with long knife on the neck of the deceased; accused No.5-Shahabuddin assaulted with machu/chopper on the left side of the head of the deceased; Lateef Baba has assaulted with chopper on chin and below the nose; and Umar Farook fired with pistol. The offence committed by the accused persons is a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is further contended that petitioners are highly influential persons and if they are released on bail, they may tamper with the

¶46

¶47

prosecution witnesses, they may abscond and they may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶48

I have perused the FIR, complaint and other

¶49

material produced along with the petition.

¶50

As could be seen from the records, the alleged incident has taken place only because of the previous animosity between the deceased and accused No.1Fayaz Khan. The prosecution papers would indicate the overt-acts of accused No.1-Fayaz Khan, accused No.5Shahabuddin, accused No.6-Lateef Baba and accused No.7-Umar Farook. Insofar as accused-Sirojoddin and accused-Taher Pasha are concerned, there is no overtact alleged. Insofar as other accused persons are concerned, there is specific overt-act to indicate that they have assaulted with long, chopper, machu and fired with the pistol. When the prosecution material indicates that there are no overt-acts as against accused

¶51

¶52

No.2-Sirojoddin and Taher Pasha who is arraigned as accused No.5 in the petition and accused No.8 in remand application and when the presence of the said accused persons at the place of incident is not forthcoming from the papers, I am of the opinion that they are entitled to be released on bail. Insofar as Latif Baba who is arraigned as accused No.3 in the petition and as accused No.6 in the remand application is concerned, there are serious overt-acts against him and there is material against him to show that he has assaulted with chopper on the chin below nose of the deceased and caused injuries with chopper. As such, it is not just and proper to release him on bail.

¶53

Keeping in view the above facts and

¶54

circumstances of the case, the petition in Criminal Petition No.200844/2017 as against petitioner No.1Latif Baba is dismissed and the petition in respect of petitioner No.2-Taher Pasha is allowed.

¶55

¶56

The petition filed by the petitioner-Sirojoddin in Criminal Petition No.200847/2017 is allowed.

¶57

Petitioner No.2-Taher Pasha in Criminal Petition No.200844/2017 and Petitioner-Sirojoddin in Criminal Petition No.200847/2017 are ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶58

i) The petitioners-Sirojoddin and Taher Pasha shall execute personal bonds for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) each with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶59

ii) They shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses;

¶60

iii) They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶61

¶62

iv) They shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail.

¶63

v) They shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional Police once in fortnight till the trial is concluded;

¶64

vi) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without its prior permission.

¶65

Sd/JUDGE

¶66

NB* Ct: vk

Latif Baba and Anr. v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latif Baba and Anr. v. the State through

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

Sri.Anand S/O Narasappa Vs State of Karnataka

Gopal S/O Bhavanrao Parit Vs Smt.Saraswati W/O Gopal Parit and Ors.

C Venugopal and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka

Sohail S/O Gaffur Jambagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Rambabu S/O Bhojanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sirojoddin @ Siraj Uddin Vs the State of Karnataka