Dismissed

Althaf Khan @ Addu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2021CRL.P/1097/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition challenging an impugned order, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the application for regular bail granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court, relying on prosecution evidence and eyewitness testimony indicating the petitioners aided in the stabbing, held the bail risked witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for enlargement on bail was dismissed.

Althaf Khan @ Addu Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1097 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ALTHAF KHAN @ ADDU AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O. NAZEEM KHAN, RESIDING AT NO.165, 2^ND CROSS, NEAR BHARATH MEDICALS, GANGONDANA HALLI, BENGALURU-560 039.

¶9

MOHAMMED SALMAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O. MOHAMMED HYDER, RESIDING AT NO.131, NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE, 6^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, GANGONDANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 039.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.271 OF 2020 REGISTERED BY CHANDRA LAYOUT P.S., BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 342, 323 AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE IPC.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by accused Nos.4 and 5 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting regular bail in Crime No.271 of 2020 registered by Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 342, 323 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶21

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that, on the complaint of Sri Arbaz Khan, the Police registered a case. It is alleged in the complaint that on 28-11-2020 at 10:30 p.m., himself and his friend, Sri Naveed, were sitting near Shetty’s Tea Stall and chatting with each other and at about 12:30 a.m., Rajababu, known person to the complainant, was calling for help. The complainant and Naveed went to that place and saw accused Nos.1 to 5 assaulting Shaheel and when they rushed to the spot to rescue Shaheel, the accused persons fled away from the spot. Immediately, they shifted the injured to the Hospital, where the deceased was declared dead. After registering the case, the Police arrested the petitioners on 30-11-2020 and remanded them to judicial custody. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court for granting bail, which came to be rejected.

¶24

Upon considering the arguments and perusal of

¶25

the record, eyewitness-Syed Muzamil @ Rajababu (C.W.4)

¶26

¶27

has clearly deposed about the involvement of the petitioners in committing the murder of the deceased. He has stated that accused Nos.2 to 4 held the deceased tightly and accused No.1 stabbed the deceased with knife and caused bleeding injuries, thereby they facilitated accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased. When he called for help, the complainant and his friend, Naveed, came to rescue the deceased and shifted the deceased to the Hospital, where the deceased was declared dead. Looking to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no overt act of the petitioners, except holding the deceased and only accused No.1 who stabbed the deceased. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. Statement of eyewitness reveals the involvement of the petitioners in participation of the crime and committing the murder of the deceased. Therefore, I am of the view that, the petitioners shared common object or intention with accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased. If

¶28

¶29

the petitioners are granted bail, they may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶30

Hence, for the reasons stated above, the petition is

¶31

dismissed .

¶32

Sd/- JUDGE

¶33

kvk

Althaf Khan @ Addu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Althaf Khan @ Addu 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

Smt Chaithra Vs State of Karnataka

Numan Ul Hassan J Vs State of Karnataka

Seetha Reddy @ Seetharemareddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammad Musharaf Vs State of Karnataka

Mani S Vs State of Karnataka

Vijayakumar @ Gonne Viji Vs State of Karnataka