The High Court of Karnataka rejected the fifth bail petition by the accused in a murder case. The court held that earlier petitions were rejected on merits without changed circumstances and refused parity based on prior rejections.
Bail petition dismissed; petitioner directed to remain in judicial custody.
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
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5228/2020
BETWEEN :
MUKTHIYAR AHAMED @ MUKTHIYAR SON OF DASTHAGIR AHAMED AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS NO.622/1, 4TH CROSS, BAPUJI COLONY KOTE, VIDYAPEET ROAD KENGERI BENGALURU – 560 098 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.REGO L.P.E. ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KENGERI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED HEREIN BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.3/2016 (S.C.NO.665/2016) OF KENGERI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
2
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 4TH NOVEMBER 2020, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This is the fifth successive petition of the petitioner seeking bail in Crime No.3/2016 of Kengeri Police Station which is now pending in C.C.No.10185/2016 on the file of 69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
case. Petitioner and two others were charge-sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
follows:
Petitioner and accused No.2 conspired to commit
murder of Nilofar, aged 45 years for gain. In execution of such conspiracy on 04.01.2016 at 3.00 p.m., when other family members were away from home, accused Nos.1 and 2 trespassed into the house, stuffed cloth in
3
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
the mouth of Nilofar, accused No.2 grappled her, accused No.1 strangulated her with electric wire. Then both of them assaulted with Chapati roller and committed her murder. Then accused Nos.1 and 2 robbed the gold, silver jewelleries and cash from the house of the victim and pledged those jewelleries in the pawn shop of CW.14. To screen the evidence of offence, accused Nos.2 and 3 transported the dead body in the autorickshaw of accused No.3 and disposed the dead body in Byramangala lake.
6411/2018 filed by the petitioner for bail were rejected on merits. Crl.P.No.5629/2017 filed by the petitioner earlier was dismissed as withdrawn.
4
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
6. According to the petitioners, the following
were the changed circumstances to seek bail.
i) PW.17 - Investigating Officer in his evidence before the Court could not identify the petitioner;
ii) Ex.P12 Pawn receipt under which the petitioner allegedly pledged the robbed jewellery does not bear the signature of the petitioner;
iii) The evidence of PW.16 daughter of the victim shows that victim was residing with Amjad Khan and having illicit relationship with him. Due to the difference between them, Amjad Khan has committed murder of the victim.
iv) This Court has granted bail to accused Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, on the ground of parity, petitioner is entitled to bail.
Regarding identification of accused by PW.17
Officer who claims to have arrested the petitioner, recovered the jewellery and recorded the alleged voluntary statement of the petitioner did not identify
5
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
him in his evidence before the Court. The petitioner himself has produced the copy of the deposition of PW.17.
and the robbed jewelleries and while seizing those properties photograph Ex.P20 was taken. He denied the suggestion that the person found in photograph Ex.P20 is not the first accused. PW.17 has clearly stated that he did not conduct investigation as to who was the owner of seized autorickshaw. Therefore, when it was questioned that the autorickshaw depicted in Ex.P20 belongs to one Irfan, he said he does not know that.
6
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
Regarding Ex.P12
Regarding omissions in the evidence of PW.16
of the victim in her evidence before the Court divulged
7
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
that victim was living with her brother-in-law Amjad Khan and that was not stated before the Investigating Officer. It was further contended that her evidence showed that victim was having illicit relationship with the said Amjad Khan and due to the difference between them, he committed her murder.
8
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
Regarding parity
that though accused Nos.2 and 3 were on bail, there is a strong circumstance against the petitioner. Therefore,
9
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
the bail petition was rejected. That itself goes to show that the parity ground was rejected as early as on 22.06.2017. Therefore, again the petitioner cannot claim parity.
rejected on the ground that though case is based on circumstantial evidence, there is strong circumstance against the petitioner. That order has attained finality. In Sanjaychandra’s case itself, it was held that each
case has to be decided on its own merits. For the aforesaid reasons the judgment in Sanjaychandra‘s case is not applicable.
1 (2012)1 SCC 40
10
Crl.P.No.5228/2020
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another2 has held that in cases involving crimes like murder, the delay in trial alone is not a relevant consideration to grant bail.
There is no merit in the petition and dismissed
accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
akc
2 2018(12)SCC 129
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there are any changed circumstances justifying granting bail in a subsequent petition after rejection on merits.
Whether parity of treatment with co-accused entitles the petitioner to bail despite rejection of earlier petitions.
Whether delay in trial alone constitutes a relevant consideration to grant bail in murder cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjaychandra vs. Central Bureau of InvestigationDistinguished¶19
Sanjaychandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012)1 SCC 40 · Who else cites this
Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anotherRelied on¶77
Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another 2018(12)SCC 129 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MUKTHIYAR AHAMED
STATE OF KARNATAKA
K.S.MUDAGAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court