Allowed

Syed Afroz @ Appu v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2021CRL.P/4345/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice M.G. Uma allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by an accused charged with murder. The Court held that pending conclusion of the trial, detention would amount to pre-trial punishment. Bail was granted subject to conditions including not committing similar offences and not tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on an Rs. 2,00,000 bond with two sureties subject to conditions of not committing offences, tampering with witnesses, and appearing when required.

Syed Afroz @ Appu Vs the State of Karnataka by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4345/2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SYED AFROZ @ APPU S/O SYED MUNNA AGED 21 YEARS R/O C’O NEAR BABA’S HOUSE AND NEAR MODI MASJID, MODI ROAD D.J.HALLI BANGALORE.

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI:V.J.BENJAMINE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY D.J.HALLI POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA – 560 001 BANGALORE.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI:H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.303/2015 (S.C.NO.671/2016) OF DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.303/2015 (S.C.No.671/2016) of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, pending before Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore (CCH-22), registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informantSri.Makbul.

¶20

Heard Sri.V.J.Benjamine, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.R.Showri, 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 arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged.

¶22

¶23

He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 15.08.2015 and since then he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is aged 21 years. He had no motive to commit the offence. Investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. But still the trial is not concluded. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner 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. He is the main accused who stabbed the deceased with a knife, which has resulted in his death. For trivial reasons, the petitioner had caused the death of the deceased. Since the matter was being

¶25

¶26

transferred from one court to another, the trial could not be completed expeditiously. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶29

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for

¶30

the following:

¶31

R E A S O N S

¶32

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶33

allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. He is arrayed as accused No.1, the other accused is being tried in Juvenile Justice Board. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed

¶34

¶35

by the Investigation Officer making specific allegations against the present petitioner, that he stabbed the deceased with a knife. CWs. 4 and 5 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. They specifically identified the present petitioner as the assailant. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter cannot be accepted at this stage. However, it is not in dispute that the charge sheet is already filed and the matter is pending in S.C. No.671/2016, before the XIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore (CCH-22). The trial in the matter is in progress. It is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner was having motive or he made preparation for causing the death of the deceased. It is also not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. The petitioner is aged 21 years as per the petition. Even though, the present case is of the year 2016, trial is pending in the matter and is in progress. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in

¶36

¶37

custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶39

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition is allowed.

¶42

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.303/2015 (S.C.No.671/2016) of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru city on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the

¶43

¶44

satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶46

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶47

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶48

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶49

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days.

¶50

¶51

The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

GVP

Syed Afroz @ Appu v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Afroz @ Appu v. the State of Karnataka by

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. M.P. Raghavendra Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh Kamath K Vs the State of Karnataka

R v Nathan Vs a P Mahesh

Ramesh Vs State by Women Police Station

Karunakar K R Vs Jagadish K.J.

Manjunatha J. M. @ Manju @ M.M.T. Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka