Dismissed

Sri. Mehboob Khan v. State by Holenarsipura Town Police Station

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021CRL.P/1351/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an murder case. The High Court rejected the bail plea due to prima facie evidence from circumstantial witnesses, CCTV footage, and strong charges under IPC 302.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; liberty granted to file similar petition after examination of material witnesses; trial directed to be expedited.

Sri. Mehboob Khan Vs State by Holenarsipura… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1351 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri.Mehboob Khan, S/o Najeer Ahammed Khan, Aged about 38 years, R/o Jaandalu, Halekote Hobli, Holenarsipura Taluk, Hassan District-573211.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri.Sudharashan.L, Advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

State by Holenarsipura Town Police Station, Rep. by SPP, High Court, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(By Sri.K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.140/2020(C.C.No.479/2020) of Holenarasipura Town P.S., Hassan District for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of IPC.

¶16

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.140/2020 (C.C.No.479/2020) of Holenarasipura Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Mamatha.

¶20

Heard Sri.Sudharshan.L, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused. He is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 05.09.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The incident is said to have taken place on 09.08.2020. But the first information came to be lodged on 22.08.2020. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. Even when the first information

¶22

¶23

was filed belatedly, it is suspected that accused Nos.1 to 3 who are his brother, sister and sister-in-law might have committed the death of the deceased. There are no eye witness to the incident. But however during investigation, the present petitioner was apprehended without any basis. The petitioner is in judicial custody since about a month. Now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He is not having any criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though there is delay in lodging the complaint, the same has been explained by the informant who is none other than the wife of the deceased. She has specifically stated that she came to know about the incident only on 22.08.2020 when her husband died in the hospital due to burn injuries. The informant initially suspected

¶25

¶26

the role of brother, sister and sister-in-law of the deceased. But however during investigation, statements of the relatives were recorded and CCTV footage found at the spot were verified, wherein, it is found that the petitioner is involved in commission of the offence. He had drawn petrol from the vehicle, poured on the deceased and set fire. CWs.17 and 18 are the circumstantial witnesses who have given statement regarding the fight between the deceased and the petitioner on the date of incident. The clothes of the accused were also seized at his instance. Now the charge sheet is filed which makes out a strong prima-facie evidence against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶28

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for

¶29

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶30

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the following:

¶31

¶32

R E A S O N S

¶33

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the present petitioner for having committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC, which is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Even though there is delay in lodging the complaint, the informant stated that she came to know about the death of the deceased only on 22.08.2020 and she suspected the role of brother, sister and sister-in-law of the deceased. Now the investigation is completed. Even though there are no eye-witness to the incident, the prosecution has relied on the statements of CWs.17 and 18 who have stated regarding the quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner on the date of incident which suggest motive for the petitioner to commit the offence. Further the prosecution has relied on CCTV footage said to have been found near the scene of occurrence and it is stated that involvement of the petitioner is clearly seen in the said footage. Thus the prosecution is placing prima-facie material to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶34

¶35

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is dismissed.

¶38

Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to file similar petition to seek bail after examination of the material witnesses.

¶39

Learned HCGP submits that CWs.14 to 18 and 32 are the material witnesses.

¶40

The petitioner is at liberty to move similar petitions after examination of these material witnesses.

¶41

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in view of the fact that accused is in judicial custody.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sri. Mehboob Khan v. State by Holenarsipura Town Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mehboob Khan v. State by Holenarsipura Town Police Station

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

Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Shrinivasa S.N @ Sheena

Joy B Vs the State by

Rahul Kumar @ Chote Lal @ Lal Vs State of Karnataka

Sahil Mohammed Vs the State by

Madhusudhan Vs State by Kodigenahalli P S