This bail petition under S. 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The court held that material evidence, including recovery of cash and a knife from the accused, established a prima facie case of robbery and theft, negating his claim of being merely a mediator.
Bail petition dismissed; petitioner not entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22n d DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101900/2019
BETWEEN
AHAMMEDASLAM @ MOULANA S/O HAJARATSAB AINAPURI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: KAMARIPETH, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(By SRI. T R PATIL, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD VIDYAGIRI P.S., REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE DIST. & SESSIONS COURT, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(By SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ON REGULAR BAIL, IN C.C.NO.2581/2019 ARISING OUT OF DHARWAD VIDYAGIRI P.S. CRIME NO.74/2019 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 471, 420 & 395 OF IPC AGAINST HIM, PENDING ON THE FILE FO THE III-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), DHARWAD.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a bail petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.74/2019 of Vidyagiri police station, Dharwad for the offenceS punishable under sections 471, 420 and 395 of IPC.
that on 07.05.2019, the complainant, one G.R. Ravikumar filed the complaint, on the basis of which, the case was registered by the respondentpolice against the accused persons. He has stated in the complaint that he is resident of
3
Nayaknahatti, taluk Challakeri, district
Chitradurga. One Fayaz of Davangere was friend of the first informant. He used to tell him that he can purchase gold below the market price at Dharwad. On 04.04.2019, himself and Fayaz came to Hubli and met Moulana and he took him to Rajatagiri at Dharwad and introduced to one Veeresh. After the negotiation, the said persons agreed to sell gold at Rs.2000/- less than the market value for one tola of gold. Further he agreed that the gold will be sold after the parliamentary elections. On 06.05.2019, one Girish and Prakash telephoned to Fayaz to bring to take the first informant and his friends to collect the gold. Accordingly, on 07.05.2019, the complainant, his friend Jakir, Fayaz and a Appraiser came to Dharwad at 11.00 a.m. along with cash of Rs.15,00,000/-. At the time of negotiations, differences arose as to the price of gold. The accused requested the complainant to
4
come at 5.00 p.m. for further talk and then they went at 5.00 p.m. The accused Prakash brought 100 gram gold biscuit and the Appraiser tested and confirmed the same as original. Then the complainant brought Rs.15,00,000/- from his car to purchase the gold. At that time, accused Prakash snatched the bag from him forcibly. When the complainant and his friends resisted the same, the accused persons came to the spot by holding knives in their hands and attempted to stab and cause injury to them. Later they ran away from the spot. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent-police registered the case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. In the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested and further completed the investigation and then the respondent-Police have filed the charge-sheet.
5
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
6
complainant and through the petitioner only the complainant approached accused no.1 and others for purchasing gold. The presence of the petitioner at the time of the incident is made out. The complainant has stated in the complaint that the accused persons threatened them by holding knives and accused no.1 snatched away the bag containing cash from him.
was arrested by the Investigating officer and on his voluntary statement, at his instance, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, one knife, one mobile and a scooter were recovered. Therefore the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he was only
the mediator and not the accomplice cannot be accepted at this stage. Release of accused no.5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is based on the facts of the case that he was not present inside the house at the time of the alleged incident and there
7
is not material to support his involvement in the alleged crime. The petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of bail on the basis of the order of anticipatory bail granted to accused No.5. The material collected by the investigating officer is sufficient to make out prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offence.
petitioner is also involved in crime no.74/2019 of Vidyagiri police station, Dharwad for the offence under Section 395 of IPC which is not disputed.
Under these circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.. Accordingly the bail petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a robbery case where he was present at the scene and a sum of money and a knife were recovered from him.
Whether the antecedent decision granting anticipatory bail to a co-accused entitles the present petitioner to similar relief.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ahammedaslam @ Moulana
The State of Karnataka
P.G.M. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
