Dismissed

Sri. Musaddiq Khan @ Rahil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2023CRL.P/1119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed Criminal Petition No. 1119 of 2023 rejecting the petitioner's bail application in a murder case. Relying on settled principles and eyewitness accounts, the court held the prosecution's apprehension was well-founded as the petitioner was prima-facie responsible for the homicide.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail was dismissed.

Sri. Musaddiq Khan @ Rahil Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1119 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1119 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MUSADDIQ KHAN @ RAHIL S/O LATE KHALEEL AHAMMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO. 02, 1^ST FLOOR, NO.36, DLEGENCE SUNNY APARTMENT, 15^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, CHANNEKESHAVA LAYOUT, HRBR LAYOUT, 3^RD BLOCK, KACHARAKANAHALLI, LINGARAJAPURA, BENGALURU – 560 084.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SIDDAPPA B M. ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI VINAYAKA.V.S, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.210/2022 OF BANASWADI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 1119 of 2023

¶19

OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.1569/2022.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Siddappa B.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶23

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:

¶24

“Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant bail to the petitioner in Crime No.210/2022 registered by Banaswadi Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and pending before the IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in S.C.No.1569/2022, by allowing this petition in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶25

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶26

Sri. G.K. Ramesh, S/o Late G. Kannan filed a complaint with Banasavadi police on 12.05.2022 which was registered in

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 1119 of 2023

¶29

Cr.No.210/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶30

Gist of the complaint averments reveal that Jayakumar being the son of complainant and Mahalakshmi being the daughter of complainant obtained bank loan for purchase of two cars and one car was run by Jayakumar and other car was leased out to his friend - Rahil. Apart from the same, Jayakumar had also barrowed loan to the extent of Rs.19.50 lakhs in the name of his wife and the proceeds of the said loan also was given to Rahil and he was paying monthly instalments to the creditor. When the Rahil failed to pay the instalments regularly, Jayakumar questioned him as to why he has defaulted in paying monthly instalments and at that juncture, there was an altercation and the petitioner has kicked Jayakumar on the private part and also stabbed on the chest region. Jayakumar fell down with profuse bleeding. On coming to know about the incident, immediately, the persons who were in and around, rushed to the spot and shifted Jayakumar to the hospital and the same was intimated by Smt. Nagma to the complainant.

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 1119 of 2023

¶33

Based on the said information, police registered the case as aforesaid and investigated the matter thoroughly and filed the charge sheet.

¶34

During the course of investigation accused was apprehended and knife was recovered based on the voluntary statement.

¶35

Statements of eyewitness recorded by the

¶36

Investigating Agency and their statements were also recorded before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the learned Trial

¶37

Judge rejected the bail application of the petitioner in S.C.No.1569/2022 by order dated 16^th November 2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri B.M. Siddappa, vehemently contended that since the charge sheet is filed and entire incident has occurred in a spur of the movement, continuation of the accused in judicial custody is no longer warranted and sought for grant of bail.

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 1119 of 2023

¶41

Per contra, reiterating the contentions urged in the objection statement, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail.

¶42

Perused the material on record in view of the rival contentions of the parties. On such perusal of the material on record it is seen that there was a loan transaction and deceased has obtained loan in his name with the name of his sister and in the name of his wife. Proceeds of the loan was given to the petitioner - Rahil for running car and with an understanding that Rahil would pay the instalments regularly. When Rahil failed to pay the instalments, loan being in the name of himself, his sister and wife, deceased went and enquired Rahil about the irregularity payment. At that juncture, incident has occurred and Jayakumar lost his life.

¶43

Incident is witnessed by two independent witnesses who have stated before the police what transpired on the fateful day and they have also made similar statements before the Magistrate when their statements were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 1119 of 2023

¶46

Taking note of the gravity of the offence alleged against the petitioner and also other material on record in the form of charge sheet, this Court is of the considered opinion that the apprehension expressed by the prosecution is well founded at least for the time being.

¶47

Further, it is settled principles of law that the Court while deciding the bail application need not hold a mini trial so as to find out the merits and demerits of the case as the same may prejudice the case of the parties and the trial one way or the other.

¶48

Suffice to say that the material available on record especially the statements of the eye witnesses, prima-facie, petitioner is responsible for the homicidal death of deceased.

¶49

It is always open for the petitioner to apply for grant of bail in the successive bail application, if there is positive changed circumstance in the case. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner, following order is passed.

¶50

¶51

CRL.P No. 1119 of 2023

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The criminal petition is dismissed.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

MR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Sri. Musaddiq Khan @ Rahil v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Musaddiq Khan @ Rahil 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

Sri. Kariyanaika Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Kiran Kumar Vs State by the Karnataka

Shamal Das, Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sudarshan B K Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt a S Rajeshwari Vs the State of Karnataka

Devangam Ramu Vs the State of Karnataka