Dismissed¶38

Syed Jamsid @ Khaseem v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2025CRL.P/10585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Syed Jamsid @ Khaseem; bail denial; Section 439 CrPC; Section 483 BNSS; Sections 302, 307 r/w 34 IPC; murder; stabbing; D J Halli Police Station; Crime No.357/2023; S.C.No.442/2024; parity refused; judicial custody; post-mortem septicemia; recovery of knife; High Court of Karnataka; Justice M G Uma; CRL.P 10585/2024; dismissed 13-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

The court answered the point in the negative: the petitioner is not entitled to grant of bail because the offence alleged is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life, and the gruesome act of stabbing the deceased with a knife on his abdomen is supported by incriminating materials (recovery of the knife and the accused's clothes at his instance, with blood stains matching the deceased). ¶31

Syed Jamsid @ Khaseem Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:1163 CRL.P No. 10585 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10585 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SYED JAMSID @ KHASEEM S/O SYED BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.123/1, MODI ROAD, NEAR EDGHA MOHALLA, D J HALLI, BANGALORE - 45, (ACCUSED NO.1 IN J C)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI. SREENIVASA KUMAR D.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY D J HALLI POLICE STATION, REP: BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.357/2023 (SC.NO.442/2024) OF RESPONDENT D.J.HALLI P.S., BANGALORE, REGISTERED FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE CCH-58 BENGALURU.

¶15

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:1163 CRL.P No. 10585 of 2024

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No357/2023 of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, pending in S.C.No.442/2024, on the file of the learned LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Ayesha.

¶20

Heard Sri. Sreenivasa Kumar D.G, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶22

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶23

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:1163 CRL.P No. 10585 of 2024

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 17.12.2023 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The father of the deceased lodged the first information on the basis of the information received by him regarding assault of his son by accused No.1, who is the petitioner herein. Therefore, FIR came to the registered against the present petitioner. The injured was admitted to hospital and died on 04.01.2024. Accordingly, Section 302 of IPC is invoked and the petitioner was apprehended. During investigation, CW2 has given a statement stating that, he had seen the deceased in the company of accused No.1, as he has taken the deceased in an auto rickshaw by the petitioner. It is the contention of the prosecution that, it is this petitioner, who stabbed the deceased on his abdomen with the knife and caused his death. As per PM report, the deceased had sustained four external injuries, corresponding with the allegations made in the charge sheet and the death was due to septicemia, as a result of penetrative injury sustained to the abdomen.

¶28

It is pertinent to note that, the knife said to be used in commission of the offence and the cloths of the accused

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:1163 CRL.P No. 10585 of 2024

¶31

were recovered at his instance and it is stated that the blood stains found therein were matching with the blood of the deceased. These are the very strong incriminating materials against the petitioner collected by the Investigating Officer, while filing the charge sheet. Under such circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail as the offence alleged is punishable either with the death or imprisonment for life and the gruesome act of stabbing the deceased with the knife on his abdomen is supported by incriminating materials.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are already enlarged on bail and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of parity. But the allegations against accused Nos. 2 and 3 are entirely different. It is not the contention of the prosecution that they have assaulted or stabbed the deceased with weapon. On the other hand, it is alleged against accused Nos. 2 and 3 that they were holding the deceased while accused No.1 caused fatal injuries. Therefore, the benefit of parity cannot be extended to the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:1163 CRL.P No. 10585 of 2024

¶34

¶35