Karnataka High Court
Malikjan S/O Nabisab Devarmani vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200298/2017
Between:
Malikjan
S/o Nabisab Devarmani
Age: 35 years, Occ: Business
R/o Almel, Tq. Sindagi
Dist. Vijayapur
... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Represented by Addl. SPP
Kalaburagi Bench
(Through Gandhi Chowk
Police Station, Dist. Vijayapur)
... Respondent
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant regular bail to the petitioner in
Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapur, FIR (Crime)
No.372/2016 pending on the file of JMFC Court at
Vijayapur, which is registered for the offence punishable
under Section 364(A) of IPC.
This petition is coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:-
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.372/2016 of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapur, registered for the offences punishable under Section 364(A) of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 11.12.2016 at about 6.00 a.m., when the victim-Abbasali was going to Mustafa Khan Mosque situated at Rahim Nagar, Vijayapura, four persons caught hold him, closed his mouth, took him into a swift car and proceeded towards Athani road. When they were so proceeding, the victim came to know that the driver of the said car is one Devaramani and he is known to him and other three persons who were present in the car are one Manoj, Vishal and Gundu. Thereafter, the said car went towards Kagawad, Miraj, Ichalakaranji, Sangola, Jath and thereafter, they took him in the car to Aigali cross 3 and there they tried to get information from the brother of the victim through mobile whether he had adjusted Rs.20,00,000/- or not. At that time, his brother told that the said amount is not adjusted and he is trying to adjust the amount. On that day, when they came to Aigali cross, at about 5.00 p.m., another white swift car without having number plate came there and in the said car one Munna Abdul, Razak Jamadar, Iqbal Inamdar and Asif Jamadar were present and they got down from the car and the persons who were present in another car came and talked with them. The said Munna told him that if he failed to adjust the amount as demanded by them, they will kill him and by saying so the said Munna and his followers left from the place in their car. Thereafter, four persons who were present in another car took him towards Jath side and they came to know that his brother has already lodged complaint to the police pertaining to this incident and at that time, by holding the legs of miscreants he requested them to 4 release him and he told that he will adjust the amount as demanded by them and will pay the amount on Friday. Thereafter, they discussed with the said Munna through phone and took him near Indi and released him from the car. Thereafter, he went to Pune in order to contact his relatives to adjust the amount but no amount was arranged there. Thereafter, he returned to Vijayapura and narrated the incident to his brother Mahiboob and his mother.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that there are no specific allegations as against the petitioner/accused No.3 to show that he has involved in the alleged incident. It is also contended that accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 7 have already been released on bail by this Court therefore, 5 petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He has also contended that the offence alleged against the petitioner is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and petitioner is a respectable member of the society. It is further contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that only with an intention to take ransom of Rs.20,00,000/-, the accused persons have kidnapped the victim and took him to various places and only after coming to know that a complaint has been registered, they have released the victim. At this juncture, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, he may 6 abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have gone through the contents of the complaint, FIR and other material produced along with the petition.
7. On going through the contents of the complaint and other material, the complaint appears to be very vague, uncertain and it is imaginary. If really the accused persons have kidnapped the victim and have taken the victim in the said car, definitely he could have made some hue and cry. This fact is not stated anywhere in the complaint. Be that as it may. When the victim was taken into the car, he has identified not only the driver but also other three persons who were also present in the car. It is also noticed that only after coming to know that the complaint has been lodged, accused persons have released the victim. If really the accused persons have kidnapped the victim for ransom 7 of Rs.20,00,000/- they could not have released the victim. Be that as it may. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 7 have already been released on bail in Criminal Petition Nos.200224/2017 C/w Criminal Petition No.200203/2017. Therefore, even on the ground parity, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in
hampering the investigation or
tampering the prosecution witnesses;
8
iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required;
iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on all the dates of hearing without fail.
v) The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the concerned Court
without its prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NB*