Dismissed

Sheik Barkath @ Bablu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2022CRL.P/7424/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a bail petition filed by three accused under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for alleged offences of murder and attempted murder. The court held that specific allegations of overt acts using a machchu and the nature of injuries made it a fit case to deny bail, rejecting parity arguments.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition filed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.75/2021 is rejected.

Sheik Barkath @ Bablu Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7424/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHEIK BARKATH @ BABLU S/O LATE SHEIK ABDUL AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT No.336, 2^ND FLOOR 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS NEAR SIDDIQ MASJID GANGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 039 2. NYAMATH @ NYAMATHULLA SHARIFF S/O MUKSUD ULLA SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT No.336, 1^ST MAIN 1^ST CROSS, NEAR SIDDIQ MASJID GANGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 039 3. ZIAULLA @ MOHAMMED ZIAULLA S/O MOHAMMED HAYATH SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT No.225, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS NER ST. JOHN HIGH SCHOOL GANGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 039

¶9

… PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA M.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶14

… RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.75/2021 OF CHANDRA POLICE STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143, 144, 148, 307, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in respect of Crime No.75/2021 registered by the Chandra Layout Police Station, Kengeri Gate Sub-Divison for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 302, 307 read with 149 of IPC.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶21

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶22

¶23

The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.03.2021 at about 10.30 p.m. when CW3-Arbaz was smoking, galata was taken place in connection with the prior ill-will between the assailants and again at 11.15 p.m. on the same day, accused Nos.1 to 6 came and assaulted CW2 and also inflicted injury with machchu on the deceased and as a result, he succumbed to the injuries. Based on the complaint, case was registered, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that CW2 only called accused No.3 and galata was taken place between accused Nos.3 and 4 and there are no criminal antecedents against these petitioners and there was no any motivation to commit murder. In fact, CW2 and the deceased were having criminal antecedents. Statement of CW2 was recorded on 02.04.2021 though the incident was taken place on 26.03.2021 and there was no material to attract Section 302 of IPC and the said act was also not an intentional one. The statement of the eye-witnesses cannot be believed and only they are the planted as witnesses and hence, the petitioners are

¶25

¶26

entitled for the bail. This Court also granted bail in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6 in Crl.P.No.4021/2021 and on the ground of parity also these petitioners may be enlarge on bail.

¶27

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that there are eyewitnesses to the incident and CW2 also sustained injuries and recoveries also made at the instance of these petitioners and during the course of the investigation also material is emerged ans these petitioners specific overt act is also mentioned that they inflicted injury with machchu. The allegation against accused No.4 is that he assaulted with his hand and accused Nos.5 and 6 pushed the victim and hence, the question of parity does not arise. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶28

Having heard the respective counsel and also on

¶29

perusal of the documents on record, it is clear that there are eye-witnesses to the incident and also during the course of the investigation, materials are collected to show that accused Nos.1 to 3 have inflicted the injuries with machchu against the victim as well as CW2 who had also sustained injuries. CW2 is the eyewitness to the incident who had suffered with the injuries and

¶30

¶31

other witnesses have also witnessed the incident and there were 21 injuries on the victim in terms of PM report and a brutal attack was made against the victim and these injuries are chopped wound injuries. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no any intention to take away the life of the deceased and the same is a matter of trial. When the specific allegations are made against these petitioners, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶33

that this Court already granted the bail in favour of accused Nos.4 to 6 cannot be a ground to enlarge these petitioners on the basis of parity as overt act allegations made against these petitioners. The Apex Court in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD vs VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI)

¶34

AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 held that while applying the principle of parity, the Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider totality of circumstances before granting bail. Parity while granting bail must focus upon role of accused, and not only on weapon carried

¶35

¶36

by accused merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether bail can be granted on the basis of parity in deciding aspect of parity, role attached to accused, their position in relation to incident and to victims is of utmost importance. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra and also the factual aspects of the case, it is clear that when there is a specific overt act against these petitioners, they are not entitled for the bail on the ground of parity in view of the order passed in Crl.P.No.4021/2021.

¶37

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶38

following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is rejected.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sheik Barkath @ Bablu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheik Barkath @ Bablu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nagamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Salman Pasha @ Salman Vs State by

Mr Rateesh K Vs State by Bypanahalli Ps

Sri Murthy Vs the State by Periyapatna Police

Sri Sanjay Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Mir Mohammed Kazim Vs State by Vyalikaval P S