Allowed

Sajid @ Mohammed Sajid v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2020CRL.P/100993/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for petitioners accused in a case involving a fight resulting in injuries. The Court observed that injuries were simple and did not attract serious offences under 307 IPC.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two sureties.

Sajid @ Mohammed Sajid Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100993/2020.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sajid @ Mohammed Sajid s/o.Honnur Swamy @ Honnurvali, age 20 years, occ: coolie,

¶9

Honnur Vali, S/o.Late Khasim Sab

¶10

Age 48 years, occ: Business,

¶11

Both are residents of Ward No.32, Gouramma Compound, Fort, behind Telugu Church Ballari,

¶12

Petitioners

¶13

( By Shri.B.Anwar Basha, advocate)

¶14

And

¶15

The State of Karnataka, Through Cowl Bazar P.S. Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, SPP office, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad.

¶16

Respondent

¶17

(By Miss.Seema Shiva Naik, HCGP)

¶18

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 on anticipatory bail in Crime Ho.92/2020 registered by Cowl Bazar P.S. for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 506, 323, 324 r/w.149 of IPC.

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Miss.Seema Shiva Naik learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondent state.

¶23

The petitioners who are accused No.1 and 2 in Cowl Bazar police station Crime No.92/2020 registered for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 323, 324, 506 r/w.Section 149 of IPC are before this court seeking for enlargement on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant one Mohammed Ghouse had lodged the complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 20/6/2020 at about 5.30 p.m. when after completion of his work, complainant came to his house and found that his children were not available in the house. He enquired with his wife who informed that accused had stabbed him a with knife for which his son was admitted to

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

hospital. Thereafter complainant went to VIMS hospital and on enquiry, his son informed him that on 20/6/2020 at about 9.30 a.m. the accused No.1/petitioner No.1 come to their house, picked up a quarrel with his mother threatening her with dire consequences. It is submitted that there was an altercation between the complainant’s son and the accused No.1 in which the complainant’s son was injured. Thereafter his son Hussain was shifted to VIMS hospital and complaint came to be filed.

¶27

Sri.B.Anwar Basha learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that entire story alleged is incorrect. Present complaint is a counter complaint to the complaint which was filed by the petitioners on 20/6/2020 which came to be registered at 19.30 hours. Present complaint was filed on 21/6/2020 and registered at 20.30 hours. He submits that in the complaint filed by the petitioners, they have alleged that complainant had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/-

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

from the petitioners which were demanded was not repaid and complainant side assaulted the petitioner stating that they would not repay the money. The petitioner should not demand any such payment and it is in fact the petitioner who had be taken to the hospital and treated for injuries. Therefore present complaint being counter complaint to cover up the complaint filed by the petitioners. The petitions being harassed there being an apprehension of imminent arrest which arrest would cause further harassment to the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners ought to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest.

¶30

Per contra, Miss.Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP would submit that serious allegations have made against the petitioners in as much as they have assaulted with knife and sword with an intention to kill the complainant, that is why complaint has been registered for the offence punishable under section

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

307 of IPC which is punishable by imprisonment for life and therefore she submits that since the investigation is pending, the petitioner ought not has been enlarged on bail.

¶33

Heard Sri.B.Anwar Basha learned counsel for the petitioners and Miss.Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP for the respondent state.

¶34

On perusal of the papers, it makes it clear that there is a complaint and counter complaint filed as regards for very same fight. The petitioner has filed complaint on 20/6/2020 at 19.30 hours and complainant filed complainant on 21/6/20 at 20.30 hours. The occurrence of the event is not in dispute.

¶35

On enquiry Miss.Seema Shiva Naik, learned HCGP would submit that the complainant though had been treated at VIMS hospital, he was discharged immediately thereafter on account of the injuries being simple in nature. Taking into account that the

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

injuries are simple in nature, I am of the considered opinion that offences under section 307 IPC would not be attracted. Taking into consideration the submission made by Sri.Anwar Basha that the petitioners would co-operate with investigation and make themselves available for further investigation by the Investigating officer as and when called for by imposing stringent conditions. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following;

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.92/2020 of Cowl Bazar police, on the following conditions:

¶40

i. They shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each, with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the said court.

¶41

: 7 :

¶42

ii. They shall appear before the trial court regularly on the appointed dates;

¶43

iii. They shall not tamper with the evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner.

¶44

iv. They shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶45

v. In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above order shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶46

The observation made above is only for the purpose of consideration of the application for anticipatory bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall dispose the case on merits without being influenced by this order.

¶47

SD/-

¶48

PKK

¶49

JUDGE

Sajid @ Mohammed Sajid v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid @ Mohammed Sajid 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.T.M. Sanna Kotraiah S/O Shivamurthaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Paravva W/O Venkatesh Kuduva Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna S/O Devappa Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sacred Heart Education Institution Vs the Deputy Director of

Shekayya Gangayya Hiremath Vs Under Secretary

Sri.Rudragouda S/O Shekaragouda Meti Vs the State of Karnataka