Allowed

Sadiq @ Tawa S/O Mahammadli Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Nov 2019CRL.P/102161/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two bail petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused persons in a criminal case involving Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. The court imposed personal bond and surety conditions including attendance obligations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail with personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each and two sureties for like sums with conditions on attendance and witness tampering.

Sadiq @ Tawa S/O Mahammadli Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^{N D} DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102123/2019 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102161/2019

¶7

IN CRL.P.NO.102123/2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHETAN S/O MAILARAPPA METI AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: KURABAR ONI, BASAPPA CHOWK, DHARWAD,

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI T R PATIL, ADVOCATE.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD TOWN P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6, ON BAIL IN DHARWAD TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.82/2019, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF ARMS ACT, AGAINST HIM, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, ETC.,.

¶18

IN CRL.P.NO.102161/2019

¶19

BETWEEN:

¶20

SADIQ @ TAWA S/O MAHAMMADLI MULLA AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: VINAYA KULAKARNI BADAVANE, DHARWAD.

¶21

ASLAM @ BILDAR S/O AKBAR JAMADAR AGE 28 YEARS, OCC: ELECTRICAL WORKS, R/O. ROUNAKAPUR MASJID, DHARWAD.

¶22

... PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI K M SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE.)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DHARWAD TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶26

... RESPONDENT

¶27

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.)

¶28

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.4 & 5 ON BAIL IN DHARWAD TOWN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.82/2019, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 25 OF ARMS ACT OF 1959, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, DHARWAD, ETC.,.

¶30

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

COMMON ORDER

¶32

These two bail petitions are filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.82/2019 of Dharwad Town P.S., registered for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 506 read with section 149 of IPC and under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. Therefore both the petitions are heard and disposed of by this common order.

¶33

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Shivayogi filed a complaint on 4.10.2019 before the respondent police,

¶34

¶35

wherein he has alleged that on 29.9.2019 at about 10.00 p.m., when himself along with his friends had dinner in Vaishali Bar near Vijaya Talkies, Dharwad and thereafter they were sitting near Rounakpur Masjid Circle, at about 12.30 in the midnight, accused persons came there and they told the accused that they did not have money to pay. The accused Tousif Shaikh demanded money stating that he is in need of money. Thereafter

¶36

they started abusing the complainant and his group. On 30.9.2019 at about 1.00 a.m., one Manjya and Mujafar Tadakod, Shabaz Tadakod came on a motorcycle. Shabaz Tadakod was holding hockey stick and Mujafar Tadakod was holding another article in his hand. On seeing the weapons in the hands of the accused, they fled away from the spot. On the said complaint, the respondent police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 6.

¶37

¶38

It is also stated that the police have registered a counter case in Crime No.83/2019 on the complaint of accused No.1 in the present case. The petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.6 and 4 and 5, respectively, in the FIR have further stated that there is a delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint and there is no explanation for the same. Case and counter case are filed against two parties. Nobody injured in the alleged incident and none were admitted in the hospital. Therefore the ingredients of the offence under section 307 are not attracted.

¶39

The petitioners who are arraigned as accused No.4, 5 and 6, respectively, in the FIR have further stated that the petitioners are no more required for any investigation or interrogation. They are ready and willing to abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the

¶40

¶41

Court and to furnish adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court

¶43

Government Pleader.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶45

submitted that there is a delay of 5 days in filing the complaint and it is also stated that it is a case and counter case. The petitioners were arrested on 4.10.2019 and since then they are in judicial custody. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the bail petition submitted that a talwar was recovered at the instance of petitioner No.2/accused No.3 and hockey stick from petitioner No.1/accused No.2 and there is a prima facie case against the petitioners which attract the offence under section 307 of IPC.

¶46

¶47

The allegations of the complaint go to show that there was a scuffle between the

¶48

complainant and the accused and in that course when the accused removed a talwar from the cover and threatened, the complainant ran away from the spot along with his friends. Admittedly none was injured in the alleged incident and there is no question of any medical treatment to any of the persons. It is also stated that on the complaint of accused No.1 in the present case, a counter case is registered against the complainant and his group in Crime No.83/2019 of the respondent police station for the similar offence. Therefore it is for the prosecution to prove as to which group was aggressor in the alleged incident during the course of trial. Under the facts and circumstances of the case it is very much doubtful as to whether the offence under section 307 of Cr.P.C. attracts in the case.

¶49

¶50

It is not disputed that the petitioners are permanent residents of Dharwad city and having movables and immovable properties and their kith and kin and they are not required for further investigation in the case and therefore they have been remanded to judicial custody.

¶51

This Court has already enlarged the accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail, vide order dated 18.11.2019 in Crl.P.No.102166/2019. In order to maintain parity, the petitioners herein are also entitled to be enlarged on bail. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail by imposing necessary conditions to see that the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation and shall not abscond and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly this Court proceed to pass the following:

¶52

¶53

ORDER

¶54

Both the bail petitions filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.82/2019 of Dharwad Town Police Station, on their executing a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- each, with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, on the following conditions.

¶55

i) The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶56

ii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer to complete the investigation and shall also mark their attendance before the SHO of Dharwad Town Police Station, on every 2^nd and 4^th Sunday of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till the final report is filed.

¶57

¶58

iii) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission and the petitioners shall not involve in any criminal case of similar nature.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Mrk/-

Sadiq @ Tawa S/O Mahammadli Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadiq @ Tawa S/O Mahammadli Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat S/O Nagusa Shinghri Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishesh S/O Ishwargouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Kumar @ Shivakumar S/O Somanna Radder Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Umesh D. Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammedaslam @ Moulana Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankrappa S/O Malleshappa Kulkarni Vs the State of Karnataka