High Court of Karnataka dismissed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that despite delayed implication, eyewitness testimony, mobile recordings, and FSL confirmation of blood-stained clothes rendered the petitioner unfit for bail in a murder case.
Bail petition rejected; petitioner denied regular bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4008/2022
BETWEEN:
ABDUL MAJEED S/O LATE ABDUL WAHEED AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT No.253/A, 10TH CROSS NEAR HYDERALI PARK GHOUSIYANAGAR MYSURU - 570 019.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W. SRI NASIR ALI, ADVOCATE FOR M/s. HP UNIQUE & CO.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION MYSURU – 570 019 REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.178/2021 OF UDAYAGIRI POLICE STATION, MYSURU
2
CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 364, 307, 302, 506 R/W. SECTION 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.5 in Crime No.178/2021 of Udayagiri Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 364, 307, 302, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.
3
Mysuru in order to purchase the essentials to the house. On 14.08.2021, the 4th accused refused to go and join the deceased. Hence, a quarrel was taken place between them. The said fact was informed to accused No.2. Accused No.2 came and enquired with accused No.4 by taking to his house and accused No.4 told that he insisting her to get an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs and she fails to get the amount. He told accused No.4 to adjust with his Real Estate Company Manager and also the victim told that he would marry some other girl. Hence, accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 being enraged with the said fact called accused Nos.7 and 8 and that on 15.08.2021 at 8:15 a.m, all of them went in OMNI Car. When the family members of the victim were telling that they can sit and discussed. Accused No.2 called accused No.3 and enquired about the same and accused No.3 told that the victim maternal uncles are coming. Hence, they were waiting. Accused No.2 told that what is there to talk with them and bring him. Hence, accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6 entered the room in which the victim was staying and when they tried to break open the door, accused Nos.7 and 8 went inside the house and joined along with other accused persons with an intention to
4
take away his like, kidnapped him and when C.W.19 came to rescue him and he was also taken in the very same Car. Accused Nos.1 and 3 threatened the victim and also C.W.2 and thereafter accused Nos.1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 took the victim as well as C.W.19 to the house bearing No.287/1. Accused Nos.7 and 8 with an intention to commit the murder, they participated in the kidnap and accused No.2 was waiting for the arrival of the victim and all of them joined together and kept him in an old house and all of them joined accused No.2, inflicted injury with wooden stick all over the body and accused No.1 also inflicted injury with the wooden stick. Accused No.5 viz., this petitioner also assaulted with wooden stick on his right leg. Accused No.6 inflicted injury with plastic pipe. When C.W.19 tried to rescue him, accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulted with their hands and accused No.6 assaulted with pipe on C.W.19. Accused No.2 told that if he assaults like this nothing will happen and to teach him a lesson, immediately took out the chopper and said that if he committed the murder once, he will not realize he should die with all pain, and at that time, accused Nos.5 and 6 held his right hand and accused No.3 held his legs and accused No.2 with
5
the chopper assaulted on his right hand and accused No.1 with the very same chopper repeatedly inflicted injury on his right hand and cut his right hand and accused No.3 snatched the chopper from accused No.1 and he also inflicted injury and accused No.5 again snatched the chopper from accused No.3 and inflicted injury on his right leg. Accused No.5 also inflicted injury 3 to 4 times on his right leg. All of them have committed the murder.
6
been implicated in the case. The learned counsel also would submit that there is allegedly recovery of blood stained shirt and pant belongs to this petitioner from the house of accused No.3 and no recovery at the instance of this petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that the sole witness is C.W.19 and he was also very much present in the mortuary and also not named his name. Hence, he has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation is that he inflicted injury with wooden stick and also snatched chopper and assaulted. To substantiate this, there is no material before the Court. In the eye witnesses’ statement also not named his name while even sending the remand application. Accused No.1 was surrendered himself in the early morning itself immediately after the incident. But an FIR was registered at 02:15 p.m, and there was a delay in lodging the FIR. The specific allegation against accused No.1 and accused No.2 and other accused persons and this petitioner is only a co-brother and he is in custody from the last 10 months. C.W.19 is also the relative of the victim and his name has not been named at the earliest point of time. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet is also filed and he is in the custody from the
7
last ten months. There is no need of further custodial trial. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the complainant is the brother of the deceased. Based on the information given by the eye witness, the complainant has given the complaint. He is not an eyewitness to the incident. Accused No.3 also recorded the incident with his mobile and the same was seized. C.W.19 is the eye witness, who made the statement with regard to the presence of this petitioner from the beginning and each and every act is explained in his statement and the statement was recorded on the very next day i.e., on 16.08.2021. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State also would submit that the blood stained clothes of this petitioner was seized and the same was sent to the FSL and the FSL report is awaited. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that the mobile belongs to accused No.3 in which the scene of occurrence was recorded was also seized. Hence, the petitioner cannot be enlarged for bail.
8
counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also on perusal of the material available on record, an incident was taken place on 15.08.2022 in between 9:30 am and 10:00 am, and the name of the petitioner was not found in the FIR. Only after 5 days, the name of this petitioner is implicated in the case. On perusal of the contents of the complaint, which was given on the same day in between 1 p.m., and 1:45 p.m., the complainant stated the names of three persons and also mentioned the name of others stating that the victim was kidnapped in the Maruti Van. When C.W.19 tried to prevent them he was also taken in the very same Car and he was very much present at the time of the incident and he narrated the manner in which inflicted the injuries and in the complaint specific averments are made inflicting the injury which he came to know about the incident through C.W.19. On perusal of the records, particularly, the prosecution is relying upon the statement of eye witness, which is recorded on 16.08.2021. He is an eyewitness and he was also taken in the very same Car. In
9
his presence only the incident was taken place. In page No.2 of his statement, he has narrated with regard to the very presence of this petitioner and also what has been transpired between them during committing the incident also stated and overt act allegation is also stated against this petitioner that at the first instance he had inflicted injury with wooden stick and also with the chopper, particularly, on the right leg of the victim. No doubt, this petitioner name has been implicated subsequently not at the first instance. But the fact is that the blood stained clothes of this petitioner was recovered in the house of accused No.3 and the same was also seized and sent to the FSL. When C.W.19 specifically mention the very role of this petitioner and overt act of this petitioner and admittedly, the complaint is not given by C.W.19, but statement of C.W.19 was recorded on the very next day and the very involvement of this petitioner has narrated. The blood stained clothes are seized and the same were sent to the FSL. The FSL report confirms that the blood stains were there in the clothes belongs to this petitioner. Apart from that, it is the case of the prosecution that this petitioner was very much present at the time of the incident and the same
10
was recorded in the mobile belongs to accused No.3, the same was seized. When such being the material available on record, particularly, C.W.19, eye witness speaks about the overt act of each of the accused persons and the fact that C.W.19 was also taken along with the victim is also not in dispute. When such being the material available on record and the FSL report is also positive with regard to the clothes of this petitioner is concerned, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner.
following:
ORDER
The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a murder case.
Whether the subsequent implication of the petitioner's name despite initial omission vitiated his candidature for regular bail.
Whether the recovery of blood-stained clothes and eyewitness testimony negates the need for bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Majeed
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
