Karnataka High Court
Irfan @ Mehboobsab @ K I K vs State Of Karnataka By on 24 July, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100938/2014
BETWEEN:
1. IRFAN @ MEHBOOBSAB @ K I K
S/O. KHAJESAB KAGADGAR
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. H NO. 468, JANATA PLOT
GANGI MADI, GADAG
2. MOHAMMASALIM
@ SALIM MUKTUMSAB BAGALKOT
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O.KHAN TOTA, BEHIND VEERA
NARAYANA TEMPLE, GADAG
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R G PATIL & RAM P GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SOUNDATTI POLICE
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HIGH COURT
GOVERNMENT PLEADER)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 & 5 IN CRIME NO.67/2014
ON THE FILE OF SAUNDATTI P.S., TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST.
BELGAUM, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 120(B),
363, 341, 302 & 201 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC & SEC. 3(1)(X),
3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, 1989.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
- State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5 in S.C. No.105/2014 pending on the file of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum, which was registered against them for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 120B, 363, 341, 302 and 201 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity) and Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled 3 Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity).
3. The records disclose that Soundatti police have registered a missing complaint filed by one Goolappa Walikar stating that his son by name Manjappa is missing from 15.11.2013. On the basis of said missing complaint, the police have enquired a person by name Hanamant Maralingappanavar (accused No.1), who is alleged to have been using the mobile SIM card of deceased Manjappa. During the investigation, he has disclosed in his voluntary statement about the fact that he was in love with one Basamma of Basidoni village. Later the marriage of said Basamma was fixed with deceased Manjappa. Therefore, Hanamant and Basamma hatched a conspiracy along with the present petitioner and other accused persons to do away with the life of Manjappa. In this context, it is alleged that 4 they have taken the deceased Manjappa along with them and tied his hands and threw him into the river from Korti-Kolhar bridge. The records also disclose that the police have completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused persons. It is seen that except the voluntary statement of Hanamant Maralingappanavar, there are no other materials in the charge sheet papers against the petitioners herein. Even though it is stated that the petitioners have also participated in the conspiracy and also assisted accused No.1 in doing away with the life of Manjappa, but, at this stage, there are no materials to connect the petitioners herein to the crime, except the voluntary statement of accused No.1 and Basamma.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader has brought to my notice that subsequent to the charge sheet, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has recorded 5 the statement of one Lohit Gujjar on 02.07.2014, who is none other than the friend of accused No.7 - Harish. In his statement he has actually stated that the accused persons have taken the deceased along with them and in fact petitioner herein and another accused Saleem Maktumsab have taken the deceased on their motorcycle and thereafter all the accused persons went in a vehicle and later he came to know that the deceased Manjappa was thrown into the Almatti Dam near Korti- Kolhar bridge. There is no whisper about the presence of this witness by any one of the prosecution witnesses whose statements were recorded by the police during the course of investigation. Even the voluntary statement of any of the accused does not show the presence of this witness at any point of time. Therefore, at this stage, for the purpose of considering the bail petition the statement of said witness is no avail to the prosecution.
6
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has now brought to my notice that the other accused persons, who also stand on the same footing as that of the petitioners by name Sadiq in Crl. P. No.101032/2014, Harish in Crl.P. No.100881/2014 and Basamma in Crl.P. No.100625/2014 have already been released on bail. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners herein are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity and also on merits. Accordingly, the following -
ORDER Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.67/2014 on the file of Soundatti Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
7
i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one solvent surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of * committal Court / trail Court, as the case may be committal Court. *corrected vide Court order dated
ii) Petitioners shall attend the Court on every 24.07.2014 date of hearing without fail, unless prevented by any genuine cause.
iii) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against them is disposed of.
Office is hereby directed to return all the charge sheet papers to the learned counsel for petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm/