Karnataka High Court
Mujafar @ Majju vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 September, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101297 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
MUJAFAR @ MAJJU S/O MAHAMMAD SHAIKH
AGE:24 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.7970, KAKTIVASE GALLI
BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.S.TIGADIKAR, ADVOCATE)
A N D:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY S.P.P. DHARWAD
(THROUGH APMC P.S.)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING THAT THE
PETITIONER KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE ENLARGED ON
REGULAR BAIL IN APMC POLICE STATION CRIME NO.117 OF
2017 POLICE STATION ON DATED 13.04.2017 IN APMC P.S.
CRIME NO.117 OF 2017 AT 8.30 PM OF THE OFFENCES UNDER
SECTION 363, 364A, 368, 384 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
UNDER SECTION 25(A) INDIAN ARMS ACT 1957 BEFORE THE II
ADDL. SJ BELAGAVI IN CRI. MISC. NO. 1297 OF 2017 BE
REJECTED THEREFORE THIS COURT LENIENCY KINDLY BE
GIVEN TO THIS PETITIONER ACCUSED AND ENLARGED HIM ON
REGULAR BAIL.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363, 364A, 368 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(A) of the Indian Arms Act, registered in respondent/Police Station Crime No.117/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments, one Sharif Babasab Yaragatti is the complainant, wherein he has stated that two days earlier to filing of the complaint, when complainant along with his son were standing nearby the building at Hanuman Nagar. At that time some persons came to him and told that one party has come from Mumbai and hence, they will mediate for the sale of his building and complainant has to pay the commission to such persons for that the complainant agreed. On 13.07.2017, when the complainant was standing nearby his building morning at 10.30 a.m. one Imarn phone to the mobile of the complainant stating that party from Mumbai has come and asked the complainant :3: where he is. Complainant informed that he is in Hanuman Nagar and within short time the said person came in a white colour Innova car bearing registration No. KA-22/9895 to the place where the complainant was standing. Imarn the person who met the complainant called him and at that time the complainant went nearby the car, they were 5 persons including the driver. When the complainant went nearby the car, they opened the door of the car and one person who was sitting in the back side seat in the said car, caught hold the shirt of the complainant and forcibly made to sit in the car. His mobile was snatched and it was switched off. When he asked why they are doing so, said persons told that complainant earned huge amount and he has to pay Rs.2,00,00,000/- stating so they started to assault the complainant with hands and one person who was holding the pistol pointed the pistol to the stomach of the complainant and insisting whether he will pay money or not, otherwise he will shoot. Complainant told that he has not having the money, they can do whatever they wanted to do. When the complainant :4: told that it is not possible to give the money, then they told at-least he has to pay Rs.25,00,000/- otherwise they will not spare himself and his son and they will shoot them. Even though the complainant told that he is not having the money, they were insisting how much amount you will pay. Complainant told that he can arrange Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-, they insisted for some more money. Then they gave the mobile phone to the complainant it was switched on. Complainant informed to his son to arrange the money whatever it is possible. After sometime Noushad the friend of the complainant phone to the mobile phone of the complainant, complainant also talked and he told the son of the complainant to give the money to Noushad. Then Noushad told that he is already received the money from his son and asked the Noushad to came with the money nearby Sagar Hotel at Gandhi Nagar. The person who was sitting in the hind seat pointed the pistol to the head of the complainant and told that he is already paid that much money, but still he has to arrange for Rs.10,00,000/- and to pay within 25th May :5: 2017. They have also threatened if he disclosed the same before anybody then they will finish of him. Then Noushad phone to the complainant, then the complainant told to come on the highway, wherein the white colour Innova vehicle is parked. Noushad came with the cash bag, which he has received from the son of the complainant and gave to the complainant. Noushad told that Rs.3,50,000/- is amount in the said bag. Then the person who was sitting in the hind seat snatched the bag from the hands of the complainant and asked the complainant to alight from the said car. Then those persons went away towards Hubli. Himself and the Noushad can identified the said persons. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that accused No.2 and 3 have been granted :6: bail by the order of this Court. He made submission that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner/accused No.1 and he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court.
5. Per contra the learned HCGP made submission, that the present petitioner is the main person, who threatened complainant holding the pistol in his hand, insisting the complainant to give the money. He also made submission that in the Test Identification parade conducted, complainant and Noushad both identified the present petitioner that he is the person insisted for the payment of the money. Learned HCGP also made submission that the present petitioner involved in so many such cases and even the crime No.92/2017 is registered in Yallapura Police Station, wherein also the allegation is that he committed the murder. Hence, he submitted since there is a prima facie material petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
:7:
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application. Looking to the materials placed on record, on the side of the prosecution there is a material of conducting Test Identification parade, wherein the complainant and his friend Noushad both identified the present petitioner, that he is the person who insisted to arrange the money of Rs.2,00,00,000/- by pointing the pistol to the complainant. Apart from that looking to the antecedents of the present petitioner and as submitted he involved in many such cases. Looking to the prosecution material, there is a prima facie case as against the present petitioner of his involvement in committing the alleged offence. The offence under Section 364A of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, it is not fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-