Karnataka High Court
Ghani @ Abdul Ghani vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6742/2012
BETWEEN:
GHANI @ ABDUL GHANI
S/O ABDUL KHALEEL
AGED 26 YEARS
R/O NO.126, IST CROSS
IST STAGE, GAYATRIPURAM
MYSORE - 54
... PETITIONER
(BY M/S.C H HANUMANTHARAYA & ASSTS., ADVS.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CITY CRIME BRANCH POLICE
N T PET, BANGALORE CITY - 560 052
... RESPONDENT
(SRI K.RAJESH RAI, HCGP)
CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.109/2012 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE F.T.C.NO.XIII, BANGALORE AND (CR.
NO.118/2011 OF HUNSUR TOWN P.S., BANGALORE CITY)
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B), 364(A), 302, 201, 212,
342 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Petitioner arraigned as accused No.8 in Crime No.118/2011 of Hunsur Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 r/w. 34 IPC was arrested on 3.2.2012 at Delhi and later, he was subjected to judicial custody. His application filed for grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Therefore, he is before this Court. Even before the arrest of this petitioner, the Investigating Officer had filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences against 18 accused persons showing this petitioner as absconding.
2. The petition is opposed by the respondent-state. Heard both the sides and perused the voluminous records produced before the Court.
3. The case of the prosecution in a nut shell is that one Vignesh and Sudhindra, residents of Hunsur Town and students studying in Mahajan College, Mysore left their houses for the last time on 8.6.2011 stating that they are going to the college for writing their 3 examination. However, they did not return home till evening. By then, the family members of Sudhindra had received a telephone call from the mobile of Sudhindra and caller stated that the two boys are in their custody and demanded a ransom of Rs.5.00 crore for their safe release. Immediately, Ashok Kumar, uncle of Sudhindra lodged a report before the jurisdictional police, narrating those facts. Based on the said report, case in Crime No.118/2011 for offence under Section 364-A IPC came to be registered against unknown persons for abduction of the two boys for ransom.
On 12.6.2011, the dead bodies of two boys were found lying on the by-pass road near Chickaballapur. The dead bodies were identified as that of Sudhindra and Vignesh. On 13.6.2011, as per the directions of the DGP, the investigation of the case was handed over to CCB, Bangalore and the Assistant Commissioner of Police was directed to head the investigation. During investigation, five persons who were found moving suspiciously in Jnanabharathi Campus area in a car, were apprehended on 26.6.2011. During interrogation, 4 they said to have confessed the crime. They also said to have disclosed the complicity of other accused persons. On the basis of such confession, apart from arraigning those five persons as accused 2 to 6 in the case, the other persons named by them were also arraigned as accused. This petitioner was arraigned as accused No.8, on the basis of such voluntary statement said to have been made by accused Nos.2 to 6.
During further investigation, certain incriminating materials namely, the gold ornaments belonging to the two deceased persons were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 6 from the possession of pawn broker, Tulasiram - CW.56. The investigation revealed that the two deceased persons had been abducted from near the college on 8.6.2011 to demand ransom from their parents and later, they were murdered by robbing their valuables. During further investigation, some more accused persons were apprehended and after completing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed as stated supra against 18 persons. As noticed earlier, 5 this petitioner was apprehended at Delhi on 3.2.2012 and since then, he has been in judicial custody.
4. Perusal of voluminous records submitted along with the charge sheet would indicate that the prosecution in order to, prima facie connect this petitioner to the crime, relies heavily on the statement said to have been made by the co-accused about the complicity of this petitioner in the crime alleged. Even according to the prosecution, after the arrest of this petitioner, except seizing a mobile hand set belonging to him, no other incriminating material has been recovered either from his possession or at his instance. Even according to the materials produced before the Court, though this petitioner was arrested on 3.2.2012, till today, no steps have been taken to conduct test identification parade. According to the prosecution, CWs.83 and 84 are the eye witnesses to the incident of abduction from near the college. According to the statements of CWs.83 and 84, both the assailants and victims were strangers to them. The materials produced along with the charge sheet would indicate that after the 6 arrest of accused 2 to 6, Test identification parade was conducted wherein, CWs.83 and 84 identified accused 4 and 7 as the two assailants. Test identification parade was stated to have been conducted much prior to the arrest of this petitioner. In spite of the same, it is alleged in the charge sheet that accused 2 to 4 and 7 to 9 have been identified by witnesses namely, CWs.81, 83 and 84 in the Test identification parade conducted by Taluka Executive Magistrate - CW.120. It is not forthcoming as to on what basis, such an allegation about the identification of this petitioner in the so called test identification parade has been stated in the charge sheet. Be that as it may at this stage, I find no prima facie incriminating materials to connect this petitioner to the crime alleged. On the basis of the so called statement of the co-accused, this Court cannot come to a prima facie conclusion that this petitioner was also involved in the crime alleged. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that this petitioner is 7 guilty of the offences alleged and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with case in Crime No.118/2011 of Hunsur Police Station, (S.C.No.109/2012, now pending before FTC-13, Bangalore City) on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs with two local sureties for the like- sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that,
i) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case;
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates without fail;
iv) The petitioner shall not go out of the jurisdiction of the trial Court without express permission thereof.
8The observations made herein are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and the learned Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by any of these observations while disposing of the case on merits.
SD/-
JUDGE nas.