Dismissed

Mohammad Hyder Ali @ Hyder @ Hyder Khan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2022CRL.P/9096/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking enlargement on bail. The court held the petition devoid of merits due to the heinous nature of the homicidal crime, corroborative eyewitness evidence, and recovery of incriminating materials.

What did the court decide?

The petition for enlargement on bail was dismissed and the accused remains in judicial custody.

Mohammad Hyder Ali @ Hyder @ Hyder Khan Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9096 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMAD HYDER ALI @ HYDER @ HYDER KHAN S/O SRI. M. SHAVAR ULLA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING BEHIND NO.5^TH CROSS OPPOSITE OF GOVT. URDU SCHOOL VINOBHA NAGAR, K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHANKARAMURTHY S.K., ADVOCATE )

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BYAPPANAHALLI RAILWAY POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BENGALURU-560 001 (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.21/2021 OF BYAPPANAHALLY RLY P.S., KARNATAKA

¶15

¶16

RAILWAY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B, 143, 147, 148, 201, 302 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.611/2022.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1 under

¶20

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.21/2021 (SC No.611/2022) of Byappanhahalli Rly Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, pending on the file of LXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru.

¶21

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on 11.11.2021 a UDR case was registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by railway guard in respect of death of unknown person under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, on 21.11.2021 the brother of the deceased lodged a complaint alleging that due to some vengeance the persons from K.G.Halli area might have caused death of his brother and

¶22

¶23

thrown the dead body on the railway track in order to screen themselves from legal consequences. Subsequently, the investigating officer registered the said complaint and during the course of the investigation he has arrested the present petitioner and other accused including juvenile offenders and recovered material objects at their instance and then submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody. He moved the bail petition before the learned sessions judge and the bail petition came to be rejected in Crl.Misc.No.6995/2022 by order dated 22.07.2022. As such the petitioner is before this Court seeking regular bail.

¶24

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend

¶27

that UDR was registered on 11.11.2021 and complaint was filed on 21.11.2021 after delay of 10 days and in-between there was no missing complaint lodged in respect of the deceased. He would also assert that there was an altercation between the deceased and juvenile offender on 10.11.2021 evening but the present petitioner is no way concerned with the juvenile offenders and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Hence, he would seek for admitting the petitioner on bail and he would also undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and prays for admitting the petitioner on regular bail.

¶28

Per contra learned HCGP would oppose the bail petition contending that Cws.7 and 8 are the eye witnesses. He would also contend that the dragger and blood stained clothes belonging to the present petitioner were recovered at the instance of the petitioner and the post mortem report disclose that there were chop wound injury on the dead body

¶29

¶30

of the deceased and the present petitioner is also involved in three other crimes consisting of offence under Section 397 of IPC, Arms Act, Theft of Railway Property Act etc., Hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition contending that in case the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of he tampering the prosecution witnesses and jumping of bail.

¶31

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is undisputed fact that death is a homicidal death. The dead body was found on 11.11.2021 and initially UDR was registered. The incident is said to have taken place on 10.11.2021 but the complaint was lodged on 21.11.2021 by the brother of the deceased. However, the complainant did not name any of the accused but he suspects that the persons from K.G.Halli might have caused the death of his brother and sought for necessary action. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has apprehended the present petitioner as well as juvenile offender. It is argued by

¶32

¶33

the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused No.2 was granted bail by this Court. However, the allegations of the charge sheet disclose that the petitioner and the juvenile offenders have played major role as they have assaulted deceased by dragger and machete. Hence, granting of bail to other accused is nothing to do with the present petitioner considering his active participation. Further Cws.7 and 8 are eye witnesses. Their statement clearly disclose that present petitioner who is accused No.1 has assaulted by dragger on deceased while the other juvenile offenders have assaulted the deceased by machete. Further this statement is corroborated by the post mortem report which disclose that the chop wound as well as incise injuries were found on the body of the deceased and they correspond with the weapons used in the assault. Further the dragger was recovered at the instance of the petitioner and his blood stained clothes were also recovered. No doubt the petitioner is in custody for nearly 8 months but that itself is not a ground for admitting him on

¶34

¶35

bail, considering the heinous nature of the crime. Further the past history of the present petitioner disclose that he is involved in robbery cases as well as offences under Arms Act. There is direct evidence in the form of statement of Cws.7 and 8 and the case is not based only on circumstantial evidence as asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶36

Under these circumstances, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case wherein the discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The petition being devoid of any merits does not survive for consideration and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is dismissed .

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

NS CT:NR

Mohammad Hyder Ali @ Hyder @ Hyder Khan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Hyder Ali @ Hyder @ Hyder Khan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Suresha Vs Sri Girisha

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Indu Singh

Smt Indu Singh Vs Mr Jagadeesha D

Ramesh S/O Subamani Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt Seethamma Vs State by Subramanya Police Station

Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka