Allowed

Sri Tausif Khan @ Tausif v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021CRL.P/5351/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for two accused persons charged with attempted murder and other offences. The court applied the principle of parity, quashing a previous order to enlarge another co-accused on bail.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were enlarged on bail in Crime No.20/2021, on obtaining a bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

Sri Tausif Khan @ Tausif Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5351/2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Sri Tausif Khan @ Tausif S/o. Ayub Khan Aged about 22 years R/at. No.120, 8^th Cross Near Arfaat Mosque ‘A’ Block, Subhash nagar Bengaluru – 560 068

¶9

Sri Ali Anwar Umar @ Setu S/o. Anwar Mohammed Umar Aged about 32 years R/at. No.1567, 10^th Cross Near Arfaat Mosque Subhash nagar Bengaluru – 560 068

¶10

…Petitioners

¶11

(By Sri.Tejas N., Advocate)

¶12

AND :

¶13

State of Karnataka By Electronic City Police Bengaluru – 560 100 (Represented by the Learned State Public Prosecutor, HCK, Bengaluru – 01) … Respondent (By Sri. H.R.Showri, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.20/2021 (C.C.No.8424/2021) of Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences P/U/S 341, 323, 143, 144, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.20/2021 of Electronic City Police Station, pending in C.C.No.8424/2021 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru Rural, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 149, 302, 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Akram Pasha.

¶19

Heard Sri. Tejas.N, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5. They are

¶21

¶22

innocent and have not committed any offences as alleged. They are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. They were apprehended on 04.02.2021 and since then they are in judicial custody. The brother of the deceased lodged the first information against one Ayub and his sons. While filing the charge sheet, Ayub is not shown as accused, on the other hand, the charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 11. As per the case of the prosecution, CWs.10 to 12 are the eyewitnesses to the incident and their statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded before the learned Magistrate. All these witnesses referred the names of about 10-12 persons committing the offences. There are absolutely

¶23

no materials to connect the petitioner to the offence in question. The so called injured eye-witness i.e., CW.10 took treatment after two days of occurrence of the incident. He sustained only simple injuries as per the medical records. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Accused Nos.2, 6, 7 to 11 against whom similar allegations are made are already enlarged on bail. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled for benefit of parity. Detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to

¶24

¶25

pre-trial punishment. The petitioners are the permanent resident 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, he prays to allow the petition.

¶26

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. CWs.10 to 12 are the eye-witnesses

¶27

to the incident and CW.10 is an injured eye-witness. The weapons used in the commission of the offences i.e., knife and iron rod were recovered at the instance of all the accused. CCTV footage also discloses participation of the present petitioners in the offences. The Investigating Officer conducted test identification parade, wherein CWs.10, 11, 12 and 14 have identified the present petitioners. Under such circumstances, clinching materials are placed before the Court to constitute the offences committed by the petitioners. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶28

¶29

petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

REASONS

¶34

The allegations made against the petitioners is of serious nature. The materials placed before the Court constitute strong prima facie materials against the present petitioners and other accused for having committed the offences. At this stage, it cannot be held that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. On going through the statements of the eye-witnesses i.e., CWs.10 to 12, it is found that general allegations are made against all the accused together. There is no specific

¶35

¶36

overt act alleged against the present petitioners. Even though there are prima facie materials, accused Nos.2, 7 to 11 against whom similar allegations are made are already enlarged on bail. Accused No.6 against whom similar allegations are made is already enlarged on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.5335/2021 vide order dated 06.08.2021. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the petition. Hence, I am of the opinion that on principles of parity, the present petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

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

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed.

¶40

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.20/2021 of Electronic City Police Station, pending in C.C.No.8424/2021 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial

¶41

¶42

Magistrate Court, Bengaluru Rural, registered for the offence of punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 149, 302, 323, 341 of IPC, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

a) The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

If in case, the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Sri Tausif Khan @ Tausif v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Tausif Khan @ Tausif v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Nagaraju Vs State by Kunigal Police

Mohammed Aftab Vs State of Karnataka by

S. Praveena Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr.G.Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Ranga @ Ranganatha Vs State by Nyamathi Police

Ranga @ Ranganatha Vs State by Nyamathi Police