Karnataka High Court
Sri.Sarfaraz S/O Subanmiya Jamadar vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.100920/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100920/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. SARFARAZ
S/O. SUBANMIYA JAMADAR
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER
R/O.VANTAMURI COLONY
NEAR SAI TEMPLE
DIST. BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MALMARUTI POLICE STATION
REP. BY IT'S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT: DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
S.C.NO.280/2017 PENDING BEFORE XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AT BELAGAVI IN CONNECTION
WITH MALMARUTI POLICE STATION P.S. CRIME NO.117/2017 FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120(B), 341, 342,
364, 396, 201, 427, 506 R/W. SECTION 34 OF THE IPC AND
UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE ARMS ACT, 1959.
CRL.P.No.100920/2018
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking his enlargement on bail in Crime No.117/2017 of respondent-complainant Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 364, 120(B), 396, 201, 427, 506 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25(A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on 19.02.2015, one Sri. Suresh Govind Redekar, a resident of Belagavi lodged a complaint with the respondent police alleging that his son by name Rohan Suresh Redekar, aged about 23 years was found missing since 18.02.2015 at 8.00 pm. The police registered the said complaint in their station Crime No.39/2015, as a complaint for finding a missing person. The said complaint was kept on the records of the police station for its investigation. In the meantime, on 14.05.2017, one CRL.P.No.100920/2018 :3: Sri.B. R. Gaddekar, said to be the Police Inspector of CCB Special Police Station, Belagavi, submitted his report before the SHO of the respondent Police Station stating that, while he was investigating in Crime No.117/2017 of APMC Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 368 and 384 of the IPC, the accused therein by name Mujiffer, S/o.Mohammed Sheikh, revealed before him about another accused by name Naveed Khazi. Accordingly, the said Inspector took into possession the said Naveed Khazi and subjected him to interrogation, wherein it was revealed by the said Naveed Khazi that he, joined by other accused in the present Crime, all put together seven accused, assembled in the farmhouse of accused No.8 - Nazeer Ahamed Nadaf, a resident of Mahanteshnagar, Belagavi and hatched a conspiracy of committing kidnapping of one Suresh Redekar, a resident of Belagavi, to extract money from him. Accordingly, to execute their plan, about two years ago, one evening they watched the movements of Suresh CRL.P.No.100920/2018 :4: Redekar and preplanning as to where he has to be stopped and abducted, distributed the task of his kidnapping among themselves. Accordingly, while the said Redekar said to have left his shop in his motor car, the accused followed him in an Innova motor car. On the way, by overtaking his car, they made the car of Redekar to stop and kidnapped him putting said Redekar in the Innova car, in which they were traveling. The accused took him to a distant place. On the way on National Highway No.4, after Hirebagewadi, in a place near Gugranatti, they came to know that the person whom they had abducted was not Suresh Redekar, but the kidnapped person was his son Rohan Redekar. However, they took said Rohan Redekar with them to Goa. On the way near Chorla Ghat, they robbed him with a golden chain and cell phone and also some cash, which was with the said Rohan and thinking that if he is allowed to go, he would reveal the incident and their identity to the people, the accused decided to put an end to his life. Accordingly, all CRL.P.No.100920/2018 :5: the accused jointly committed his murder by stabbing him. With an intention to destroy the evidence, they threw the dead body in a valley in that area.
Sri.Gaddekar, the Police Inspector, who heard the said revelation made by the accused Naveed Khazi, lodged a complaint in that regard with the complainant police. The said complaint was registered with the complainant police in their station Crime No.117/2017 against eight accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 364, 120B, 396, 201, 427, 506 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25(A) of the Indian Arms Act 1959.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments, while reiterating the contention taken up by him in his petition, submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged revelation said to have been made by the accused while he is said to have being interrogated in another crime. As such, it carries no reliability to believe and act upon it. The learned counsel further submitted that, there is a delay of two years in CRL.P.No.100920/2018 :6: lodging the FIR and admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. It is only based on the conjunctions and surmises a false case has been registered against the present accused. The learned counsel also submitted that accused Nos.3, 5 and 8 have already been enlarged on bail by this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent - State, apart from filing his statement of objection also vehemently opposed the petition stating that all the accused are habitual accused involved in several crimes and that with greatest difficulty the Investigating Officer could investigate that the missing Rohan Redekar was abducted by the accused and was killed in a brutal manner. Further, the investigating Officer also made recovery, more importantly the debit card of the deceased Rohan at the instance of accused No.1 - Naveed Khaji. As such, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
CRL.P.No.100920/2018:7:
5. Admittedly, as could be gathered at this stage, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The alleged missing of deceased Rohan was on 19.02.2015, in which regard for about two years, the police could not get any clue about the whereabouts of the missing person. It is only when the present complainant is said to have conducting the investigation in Crime No.117/2017 of the APMC Police Station, it is said that, by the alleged revelation of the Rohan's kidnapping case, he came to know about the alleged murder of Rohan and the involvement of the other accused therein.
Even according to the prosecution, it is based on the voluntary statement of the co-accused, the present petitioner/accused No.7 is said to have been arrayed as accused, but at this stage, the prosecution has not placed any other material or cogent evidence to prima facie come to a conclusion about the alleged involvement of the present accused in the alleged commission of the crime. The allegation levelled against the present petitioner is CRL.P.No.100920/2018 :8: only of the fact that he provided the other accused with a stepney wheel of an Innova Car, which is said to have been used in the commission of the crime and that he is also said to have kept chasing on the alleged movement of the victim and intimated it to other accused.
It is also brought to the notice of this Court at this stage by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, no incriminating materials were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner.
6. Even though the offences alleged against the accused are heinous in nature, but the above analysis go to show that the availability of materials before this Court at this stage creates some doubt about the involvement of the present petitioner/accused No.7 in the commission of the alleged crime to the extent as alleged by the prosecution. However, the finding towards the alleged involvement of the present petitioner can only be given after holding a full fledged trial. At the same time, it also cannot be ignored of the fact that, accused No.8 is said to CRL.P.No.100920/2018 :9: have been enlarged on bail by this Court on 10.11.2017, in Criminal Petition No.102358/2017.
7. Even though a previous similar petition of the petitioner was rejected by this Court in Criminal Petition No.102729/2017 on 11.01.2018, still considering the fact that the other accused have been granted bail by this Court and more particularly, accused Nos. 3 and 5 on 21.06.2018, and the fact that the alleged overt act said to have been committed by the present petitioner cannot be more serious than those two accused, I am of the view that the present accused also deserves the same relief.
Further, as observed above, even though the debit card of the deceased Rohan was shown to have been recovered from the house of the said accused No.8, the relief of bail has been extended to him. Since at this stage the role of present petitioner/accused No.7 cannot be taken as in excess of the alleged role of accused No.8 in the commission of the crime, I am of the view that, on the ground of parity, the present petitioner deserves to be CRL.P.No.100920/2018 : 10 : enlarged on bail. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that securing the petitioner for the trial would be a greatest difficulty can be checked by imposing conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER Petition is allowed.
The petitioner/accused No.7 be enlarged on bail in Crime No.117/2017 of Malamaruti Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 364, 120(B), 396, 201, 427, 506 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25(A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, however, subject to the following condition:
(i) He shall execute personal bond for a sum of `50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court. No single person can extend his suretyship for more than one accused.
(ii) He shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.CRL.P.No.100920/2018 : 11 :
(iii) He shall keep informed the Court in writing about changes in his address, if any, and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard in writing.
(iv) He shall not hamper or tamper the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
gab