Allowed

Samiulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2021CRL.P/4426/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed bail petitions filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by accused persons in a murder case involving sections 120B, 302, 201 IPC, to be enlarged on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining bond of Rs. 2,00,000 each with two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding non-commission of offences, non-interference with wit

Samiulla 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 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6431/2021

¶7

c/w

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4426/2021 CRIMINAL PETITION No.6566/2021

¶9

CRL.P No.6431/2021

¶10

BETWEEN :

¶11

SAIFULLA S/O AZAMATHULLA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/A CPI COLONY, HINDUPURA TOWN ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH PERMANENT RESIDENT: I D HALLI VILLAGE, MADHUGIRI TALUK KARNTAKA 572132

¶12

… PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI NASIR ALI: ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND :

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOWRIBIDANUR POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, PIN-561208 (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE )

¶16

… RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH: HCGP)

¶18

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.59/2021 (CR.NO.2/2021) OF GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN P.S., CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B,302,201 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶20

CRL.P No.4426/2021

¶21

BETWEEN :

¶22

SAMIULLA S/O LATE ABDULLA SHAKUR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDENT OF C P I COLONY HINDUPURA TOWN DISTRICT. ANANTHAPURA ANDRAPRADESH-515 201

¶23

… PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI NASIR ALI: ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND :

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN POLICE STATION TALUKA GOWRIBIDANUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶27

… RESPONDENT

¶28

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH: HCGP)

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.2/2021 OF GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, PENDING IN SC NO.59/2021 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

¶30

¶31

CHIKKABALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302,201,120B OF IPC.

¶32

CRL.P No.6566/2021

¶33

BETWEEN :

¶34

TIPPU S/O SHEIK ADAM AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/A CPI COLONY, HINDUPURA VILLAGE ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH PERMANENT RESIDENT: DODDAKURUGODU VILLAGE GOURIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT

¶35

… PETITIONER

¶36

(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI KALEEM SABIR: ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND :

¶38

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOWRIBIDANUR POLICE STATION CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

¶39

… RESPONDENT

¶40

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH: HCGP)

¶41

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.59/2021 (CR.NO.2/2021) OF GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN P.S., CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHICKKABALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B,302,201,34 OF IPC.

¶42

¶43

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

¶44

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶45

The petitioner-accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.6431/2021,

¶46

the petitioner-accused No.4 in Crl.P.No.4426/2021 and the petitioner-accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.6566/2021, are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.2/2021 of Gowribidanur Town Police Station, which is pending in S.C.No.59/2021 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chickkaballapur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Mohammed Sharif.

¶47

Heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior counsel for Sri.Nasir Ali, learned Counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P.No.6431/2021 and Crl.P.No.4426/2021. Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior counsel for Sri Kaleem Sabir, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.6566/2021 and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High

¶48

¶49

Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶50

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in Crl.P.6431/2021 is arrayed as accused No.3, the petitioner in Crl.P.4426/2021 is arrayed as accused No.4 and the petitioner in Crl.P.6566/2021 is arrayed as accused No.2. All the petitioners were apprehended on 09.01.2021. The petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged. They were falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence.

¶51

Even the circumstantial evidence is not strong enough to connect the petitioners to the offence in question. Initially FIR was registered against unknown persons. Petitioners are not named therein. When the statements of the family members were recorded during inquest, they suspected the role of accused No.1. Accused No.1 is the brother-inlaw of the deceased. The motive alleged against accused

¶52

¶53

No.1 and other accused is of very weak nature. The only link to connect the petitioners to the offence in question is the so called confessional statement of accused No.1, stated to have been given before the Investigating Officer. These petitioners were taken to police custody till 15.01.2021. But nothing has been recovered at their instance. Even though it is stated that weapons were recovered at the instance of accused, it is only a joint recovery according to the case made out by prosecution. It is stated that the lorry used in the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of accused No.1. Since there are no materials to connect the petitioners to the offence in question and since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents. They are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, prays to allow the petition.

¶54

¶55

Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Even though FIR was registered initially against unknown persons, during the investigation, it is found that accused No.1 who was having motive to cause the death of the deceased, conspired with the brother and other accused to eliminate the deceased. Accordingly, they assaulted him with dagger, long, talwar and machete. All the weapons were recovered at the instance of these petitioners and accused No.1. The blood stained lorry was also recovered at the instance of accused No.1. The blood stained clothes and foot wears were burnt by the petitioners and the spot was shown by them. Ashes were collected by the Investigating Officer. Even though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, there are strong circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioners to the offence in question. Looking to the seriousness of the offence, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶56

¶57

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶58

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶59

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶60

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

¶61

the following:

¶62

R E A S O N S

¶63

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶64

allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Even though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, initially accused No.1 was apprehended on suspicion. During the investigation, it is stated that his voluntary statement was recorded. However, incriminating materials said to have been recovered at the instance of various accused jointly. It is also stated that the petitioners have shown the place where the offence was committed and where the blood

¶65

¶66

stained clothes were burnt. They also showed the place where the weapons were thrown after the commission of offence. From all these materials on record, it cannot be concluded at this stage, that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, admittedly, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. It is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioners are required for further investigation or that they are having criminal antecedents. Therefore, detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to infringement of their right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are 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 petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶67

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶68

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶69

¶70

ORDER

¶71

The petition is allowed.

¶72

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.2/2021 of Gowribidanur Town Police Station, Chikkaballapura District, pending in S.C.No.59/2021 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶73

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶74

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

¶75

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

¶76

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

¶77

¶78

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, 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 petitioners 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. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioners on bail.

¶79

Sd/JUDGE

¶80

SKS

Samiulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samiulla 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

Anjana Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Malang Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Raiju @ Abdul Rahiman Vs the State of Karnataka

M Harsha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sandeep Vs State by