Allowed

Shaik Farook @ Farooq v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023CRL.P/1348/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows a successive bail petition filed by an accused in a murder case (IPC 302). The court granted bail due to the turning hostile of direct prosecution witnesses, finding prima facie material lacking.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000, two sureties, conditions against tampering with witnesses and leaving jurisdiction.

Shaik Farook @ Farooq Vs State of Karnataka by — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 1348 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1348 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHAIK FAROOK @ FAROOQ S/O LATE SHAIK MASTAN SAB AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.302, NEAR YELLAMMA TEMPLE, 4^TH CROSS, GUTTEPALYA, DAYANANDA SLUM, SOMESHWARANAGAR, JAYANAGAR 1^ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 027.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR N., ADVOCATE FOR SMT JAYANTHI R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SIDDAPURA P.S., REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.219/2021 OF SIDDAPURA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.302 OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - CRL.P No. 1348 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.219/2021 of Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

¶22

This is a successive bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused. This Court earlier vide order dated 21.07.2022 rejected the bail petition in Crl.P.No.288/2022, wherein, in paragraph No.6, this Court has observed that C.W.2 is the daughter, who was present at the time of committing the murder and witnessed the incident of assault. The post-mortem report also discloses that there were ten injuries all over the body and also taken note of CWs.2 to 4 are the direct evidence available against the accused.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that CWs.2 to 4 – eye witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and they have not supported

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 1348 of 2023

¶26

the case of the prosecution. Even though cross-examined those witnesses, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination. When eye witnesses have turned hostile, this Court can enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶27

Per contra , the learned High Court Government

¶28

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that merely because the eye witnesses have turned hostile, this Court cannot grant bail when an heinous offence of murder is committed. Hence, he is not entitled for bail.

¶29

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, no doubt, this Court earlier rejected the bail petition in Crl.P.No.288/2022, wherein, an observation is made that the direct evidence is available before the Court viz., CWs.2 to 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also produced the copy of the order sheet, wherein, CW.4 is not examined and other witnesses have been examined. On perusal of the deposition, all the witnesses have turned hostile and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of the hostile witnesses. When such being the material available on record and the petitioner is in custody

¶30

4 - CRL.P No. 1348 of 2023

¶31

from 2021 and when the material witnesses have turned hostile, keeping him in custody amounts to curtailing the liberty of a person when prima facie material is not found. Hence, it is

¶32

appropriate to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.219/2021 of Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶38

¶39

CRL.P No. 1348 of 2023

¶40

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Shaik Farook @ Farooq v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Farook @ Farooq v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri. Aslam Ahamed Vs Sri. Altaf Pasha

Mrs Lokamma (Dead) Vs Mrs Umavathi

Sri. Tawakal Sab Vs Smt. Pyarijan

Sri Ravisha H L @ Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Pujar Thippanna Vs Smt.Thippamma

H S Krishnamurthy Vs H P Mohanraj