Mucha Sheik @ Bappi Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mucha Sheik @ Bappi Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl.C.No.14/2023 pending before the Court of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (arising out of Crime No.35/2021 of Jigani Police Station), subject to conditions: (a) execution of personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, one of whom shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court; (b) regular appearance on all dates of hearing before the trial Court unless exempted for valid reasons; (c) not to directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with prosecution witnesses; (d) not to involve in similar offences in future; (e) not to leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without its permission until the case is disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arraigned as Accused No.4 in Spl.C.No.14/2023 (arising out of Crime No.35/2021 of Jigani Police Station) and charge sheeted only under Sections 370 and 371 IPC (maximum punishment ten years), in custody for nearly four years with no criminal antecedents and only one of 46 charge sheet witnesses examined, should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in this successive bail application on the ground of delay in trial.

Court's answer

The petitioner, arraigned as Accused No.4 in the charge sheet, is invoked only for offences punishable under Sections 370 and 371 of IPC, for which the maximum punishment is imprisonment for a period of ten years; he has no other criminal antecedents and has been in custody for the last nearly four years.

Ratio / Principle

Till date only one of the 46 charge sheet witnesses cited in the case has been examined; therefore the chances of the trial being completed and the case being disposed of on merits in the near future are very remote.

Key takeaways

Applying the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, para 19) that where the State or prosecuting agency cannot provide or protect the accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, it should not oppose bail on the ground that the crime is serious, and without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, the petitioner's prayer for regular bail needed to be answered affirmatively subject to appropriate conditions to ensure his presence before the trial Court.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Successive regular bail application under S.439 Cr.P.C by Accused No.4 in Spl.C.No.14/2023 (Crime No.35/2021, Jigani Police Station; offences Ss.201, 370, 371, 376D, 302 r/w S.34 IPC) — petitioner charge sheeted only under Ss.370 and 371 IPC, maximum punishment ten years' imprisonment; in custody nearly four years; no criminal antecedents; only one of 46 charge sheet witnesses examined, so early completion of trial very remote — relying on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 (Art.21 speedy trial: State should not oppose bail merely because crime is serious), and without expressing any opinion on merits, High Court allowed bail subject to conditions including personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties (one local), regular attendance, no tampering with witnesses, no similar offences, and no departure from trial Court's jurisdiction without permission.