Karnataka High Court
Mujeeb Rahiman K U vs State By Kushalnagar Rural Police on 20 June, 2019
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRL. R. P. NO.376 OF 2018 C/W
CRL. R. P. NOs.372, 373, 374 & 375 OF 2018
IN CRL.R.P.NO.376/2018
BETWEEN:
MUJEEB RAHIMAN K.U.,
S/O UMMER,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT MADAPATNA VILLAGE,
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN AND POST,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE BY KUSHALNAGAR
RURAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
-2-
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.12.2017
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.506/2017 BY THE HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL SESSION JUDGE KODAGU, AT MADIKERI
REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
FOR INTERIM RELEASE OF HIS ARICLES UNDER SECTION
451 AND 457 AS PRAYED IN ARISING OUT OF
P.F.NO.80/2016 IN CRIME NO.79/2016 NOW
S.C.NO.75/2017 OF KUSHAL NAGAR RURAL POLICE, BY
APPRECIATING THE SAME.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.372/2018
BETWEEN:
ILLYAS K.E.,
S/O K.M.IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT MADAPATNA VILLAGE,
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN AND POST,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE BY KUSHALNAGAR
RURAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.12.2017
-3-
PASSED BY PRINCIPAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.MISC.NO.487/2017
REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
FOR INTERIM RELEASE OF HIS ARICLES UNDER SECTION
451 AND 457 AS PRAYED IN ARISING OUT OF
P.F.NO.80/2016 IN CRIME NO.79/2016 NOW
S.C.NO.75/2017 OF KUSHAL NAGAR RURAL POLICE, BY
APPRECIATING THE SAME.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.373/2018
BETWEEN:
HYARIS TA,
S/O M.E.ABBAS,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT GONDIBASAVANA HALLI,
KUSHALNAGAR TOWN AND POST,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 236.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE BY KUSHALNAGAR
RURAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.12.2017
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.488/2017 BY THE HON'BLE
-4-
PRINCIPAL SESSION JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
KODAGU, AT MADIKERI REJECTING THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR INTERIM RELEASE OF HIS
ARICLES UNDER SECTION 451 AND 457 AS PRAYED IN
ARISING OUT OF P.F.NO.80/2016 IN CRIME NO.79/2016
NOW S.C.NO.75/2017 OF KUSHAL NAGAR RURAL POLICE,
BY APPRECIATING THE SAME.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.374/2018
BETWEEN:
NAYAZ AHAMAD,
S/O NOOR AHAMAD,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT RANIPET,
MADIKERI TOWN AND POST,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE BY KUSHALNAGAR
RURAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.12.2017
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI IN CRL.MISC.NO.489/2017
REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER
-5-
FOR INTERIM RELEASE OF HIS ARICLES UNDER SECTION
451 AND 457 AS PRAYED IN ARISING OUT OF
P.F.NO.80/2016 IN CRIME NO.79/2016 NOW
S.C.NO.75/2017 OF KUSHAL NAGAR RURAL POLICE, BY
APPRECIATING THE SAME.
IN CRL.R.P.NO.375/2018
BETWEEN:
THUFAIL M H.,
S/O HAMEED,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O NEAR GADDIGE,
MADIKERI TOWN AND POST,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 231.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE BY KUSHALNAGAR
RURAL POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP)
***
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.12.2017
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.490/2017 BY THE HON'BLE
PRINCIPAL SESSION AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KODAGU AT
MADIKERI REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER FOR INTERIM RELEASE OF HIS ARTICLES
UNDER SECTION 451 AND 457 AS PRAYED IN ARISING
-6-
OUT OF P.F.NO.80/2016 IN CRIME NO.79/2016 NOW
S.C.NO.75/2017 OF KUSHAL NAGAR RURAL POLICE, BY
APPRECIATING THE SAME.
THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These revision petitions are filed by accused Nos.7, 4, 8, 2 and 1 respectively, challenging the order dated 02.12.2017 passed by the Principal District Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, rejecting the applications filed by them under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioners herein are the accused in Cr. No.79/2016 of Kushalanagara Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against 9 accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The accused - petitioners herein filed their respective applications under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking to release the properties seized during -7- the course of investigation under PF No.80/2016 and to release the said properties to their interim custody.
3. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 02.12.2017 rejected the applications filed by the respective accused / petitioners. Challenging the aforesaid order these petitions are filed.
4. Crl. R.P. No.376/2018 arises out of Crl. Misc. No.506/2017 filed by petitioner/accused No.7, wherein he had sought for interim custody of one Samsung white colour smart phone with 8 GB memory card and one small Nokia phone. Crl. R.P. No.372/2018 arise out of Crl. Misc. No.487/2017 filed by petitioner/accused No.4, wherein he had sought for interim custody of Vivo Company white colour smart phone with 8 GB memory card. Crl. R.P. No.373/2018 arise out of Crl. Misc. No.488/2017 filed by petitioner/accused No.8, wherein he had sought interim custody of Samgsung white colour smart phone with 8 GB memory card and Karbon K160 black and gold colour and one CEFC Pen drive. Crl. R.P. No.374/2018 arise out of Crl. Misc. No.489/2017 filed by petitioner/accused No.2, -8- wherein he had sought interim custody of Samsung Duos smart mobile phone. Crl. R.P. No.375/2018 arise out of Crl. Misc. No.490/2017 filed by petitioner/accused No.1, wherein he had sought interim custody of one mobile I- Phone with white clour charger and two pen drive red colour sand disk.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.
6. The learned counsel for petitioners contended that the learned Sessions Judge has mechanically and without considering the grounds urged by the respective applicants, has passed the impugned order. He submits that the charge sheet has been filed and the case has been committed to the Sessions Court. Therefore, the properties seized under PF No.80/2016 is not required for investigation and if they are not released to the interim custody of the petitioners, there are more chances of they getting damaged and become useless. He submits that -9- only the call records are relevant and not the mobile phones which are now admittedly seized from the possession of these petitioners. He further submits that the Investigating Officer has now obtained CFSL report and filed it before the Court. Therefore, he submits that the properties which are now sought may be released to the interim custody of the accused / petitioners.
7. On the other hand, the learned HCGP appearing for respondent - State submits that the properties now seized are material evidence and they are required for identification as the petitioners are involved in a serious crime. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petitions.
8. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. The contentions of the prosecution as observed by the learned Sessions Judge is that the mobile and sim are material evidence. There is chances of conversation, calls and recalls and messages during and after the incident for planning and to inform about result,
- 10 -
etc. Contents in electronics as per Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is admissible as primary evidence. The learned Sessions Judge has also observed that during trial those are required for identification, etc. The learned Sessions Judge has further observed that the Investigating Officer has to file additional charge sheet after verifying CFSL report and therefore, this is not a fit case to do so at this stage.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioners that the articles seized are electronic devices and there are chances of they getting damaged and becoming useless if they are kept for long time without using the same, the petitioners are permitted to file one more application for release of the said properties seized at appropriate stage. If such applications are filed by the petitioners, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to consider the same in accordance with law.
- 11 -
10. With the above observations and directions these petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE VK