Karnataka High Court
Saifan Sab S/O Razaksab Makandar vs The State Through on 29 September, 2011
Author: H.S.Kempanna
Bench: H.S.Kempanna
ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cade of Criminal Procedure praying to allow and release the accused I petitioner on bail in Crime No. 28/2010 of Indi Police Station, | Bijapur, which is registered for 'the offerices punishable under sections 143, 147, 302 read with. "Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard the, tearned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Adal 3. 1 m5 the ee contents of the FIR discloses that And Pol ico. rave "registered a case in Crime No. 2286/2010 against "accused No.i-Saifan, accused No.2- Prakash, accused No.3-Gulaba, accused No.4-Srishaila, accused No. 3s Madeva for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 302 read. with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code on the con mplaint. of Mohammad Hayath. It is alleged in the complaint . that father of complainant-Moulasab Mohammad Hayath, aged ™ 63 years, had two wives, namely Jubeda and Sainaia. His father 7 was working as a Kannada School Teacher at Maharashtra and g, a - retired from service. It is also stated in the complaint that there was dispute between his father and his maternal . "uncle Hussainsab Lalasab Mulla and Shabbir Abbasali Mulla for the past Ba 14 to 15 years. Due to the enemity between tnese two par ties, there was murder of Saifan, Mujeeb Raiman and Hussain, 4. It is further stated in the complain that on 14, 11.2010, at 2 a.m. complainant's sister's. son 'Saddam telephoned the complainant and told him that on 13. 11. 2010 at 9 p.m. Saifen Razaksab Makander and Prakash Vishwanath Umarj]i had come to his house and 1 told that they have ki led Moulasab and thrown the dead body i in | the Bus Stan hd. They were frightened and did not open the door. . Ae 32. 30 a. m. the Police came to their house. Then, they went along with the Police and saw the dead . body of Moulasae. 'The dead body was tied with a white cloth and'! lurigi. and blood was oozing. Due to previous enemity, the : accused joined together and they have killed his father. - 5. 4In this case, investigation is completed and charge - sheet is filed. Therefore, the presence of the petitioner for the | ~~ purpose of investigation may not be required. The petitioner is EEE in judicial custody from 3.2.2011. It is well settled that pre-trial detention is bad in law. The offences alleged agains at the petiti ioner are under Section 302 of Indian | Penal Code, and Sections 25(1)(a) and 29(1) of Indian Arms Act, which are : Serious in nature. Therefore, an opportun! "y should be given to the petitioner to prepare his defence on méri "The contents of the complaint disclose that 'Sadd am 'telephoned and informed the complainant about the murder of nis father by the accused. It is the contention of. the iearned counsel f or the petitioner that this iS extra-judicial confession 'and it ig a weak piece of evidence. There is a. force in in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. There are: no > eyenitresses to the incident. The case iS based on cire: imstantial evidence. Therefore, considering the facts ar nd. circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this is. a fit case to avant bail, at this stage. 60In the result, [ pass the following: ORDER
_ This Criminal Petition is allowed conditionally. The petitioner is granted with bail. He shall be released on bail in AY SE, Crime No.228/2010 of Indi Police Station on his executing a personal bond for a sum of %50,000/- with two suretie Ss for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned _ Sessions judge, ° Bijapur, on the following conditions:
ij Petitioner shall not temper with the prosecution witnesses. .
i) He shall not jump oail, a Hi) If any of the condi tions are violated, the bail ent tai iis canicel lation. .
Sd/-
JUDGE KM