Karnataka High Court
Shafiulla @ Auto Shafi vs State By on 23 September, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:39438
CRL.P No. 4529 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4529 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHAFIULLA @ AUTO SHAFI
S/O S.J KHALEEL,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
AUTO DRIVER, R/AT NO.A22,
3RD CROSS, BUDDA NAGARA,
GANAPAHTI TEMPLE,
SHIMOGGA DISTRICT.
PIN CODE - 576 201.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by SWAPNA V
(BY SRI. HASMATH PASHA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
Location: high
court of SRI. MOHAMMED MUBARAK, ADVOCATE)
karnataka
AND:
STATE BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KUNDAPURA POLICE STAITON,
BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
(HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA)
PIN CODE - 560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.111/2023 REGISTERED BY
KUNDAPURA POLICE, UDUPI, REGISTERED IN 1ST ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT KUNDAPURA, , FOR OFFENCE P/U/S
504, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KUNDAPURA IN
S.C.NO.505/2024.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:39438
CRL.P No. 4529 of 2024
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.111/2023 of Kundapura Police Station, pending in SC No.505/2024 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kundapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Chandra Amin.
2. Heard Sri. Hasmath Pasha, learned counsel for Sri. Mohammed Mubarak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:39438 CRL.P No. 4529 of 2024 "Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'negative' for the following:
REASONS
4. Petitioner being accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 05.10.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. One of the eye witnesses to the incident lodged the first information alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 504, 307 R/w Section 34 of IPC.
5. It is alleged that the accused have quarrelled with the deceased, abused him in filthy language, taking advantage of the situation where the car in which the accused were proceeding had touched the hind portion of the car in which the deceased was proceeding. The accused have chased and overtaken his car and started quarrelling with him. During altercation, accused No.2 caught hold of the deceased, while accused No1. Stabbed him with a knife on his right thigh. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:39438 CRL.P No. 4529 of 2024 Immediately, he was shifted to Chinmaya Hospital, Kundapur and thereafter, shifted to KMC hospital, Manipal, where he breathed his last, on the next day.
6. The wound certificate discloses that the injured had sustained stab injury measuring 2.5 X 1 cm muscle deep with tailing upwards was present over the front of right thigh, situated at a point, 20 cm above right knee joint, which was grievous in nature. The injured died on 02.10.2023 and as per the post mortem report, he died due to haemorrhage, secondary to complications of stab injury to the thigh.
7. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner drawn my attention to the death summary issued by Kasturba Hospital Manipal, to contend that the deceased was a heart patient and he has not died due to the stab injury but due to cardiac arrest.
8. The death summary reads as under:
"History of Present Illness:
Patient was apparently alright during the day when he was allegedly stabbed by a knife in the right thigh in Kundapura by a by-passer after road rage at 7pm on 01/10/2023 when he was driving in Kundapura. Patient party gives history of small incident with a two-wheeler -5- NC: 2024:KHC:39438 CRL.P No. 4529 of 2024 which led to an argument and the two wheeler rider allegedly stabbed the patient with a knife during the argument. He was taken to a local hospital and referred to KH for further evaluation and management of the excessive bleeding cased by the stab wound. Patient on presentation to blue area had a cardiac arrest and CPR was initiated. EMD gave 4 cycles of CPR, patient was intubated and Massive Blood Transfusion protocol was initiated."
9. Such contention taken by the learned Senior Advocate cannot be accepted at this stage, as the opinion expressed by the Medical Officer in the post mortem report is very clear about the cause of death. He must have developed complications due to his ailment after he was taken to the hospital and while treating. The same cannot be a ground to contend that the death of the deceased was not due to the stab injury sustained by him which is apparently against the opinion given by the module officer after post mortem examination about the cause of death.
10. Learned Senior Advocate has drawn my attention to the voluntary statement of accused No.1 recorded by the Investigating Officer to contend that it was the deceased who -6- NC: 2024:KHC:39438 CRL.P No. 4529 of 2024 was responsible for the incident, as he had caused accident while overtaking the car, in which, the petitioner was travelling. But even if the voluntary statement of the accused is taken into consideration, he states before the Investigating Office that the front portion of his car had touched the back portion of the car in which, the deceased was proceeding and it was the accused who chased the deceased, overtook his car, stopped it forcibly and picked up quarrel. During altercation, it was this petitioner, who took out the knife and stabbed the deceased on his left thigh, causing grievous hurt. As a result of which, subsequently, he died in the hospital. The contention of the learned Senior Advocate that it was only a road rage, and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause the death of the deceased cannot be accepted at this stage. As it is dangerous to release such petitioner/accused, who are having the mindset of picking the quarrel with others on the highway, taking advantage of their own wrong or of some accident and causing fatal injuries by using deadly weapons.
11. It is pertinent to note that accused No.2 had approached this Court by filing similar petition in Crl.P.No.4386/2024, which came to be dismissed vide order -7- NC: 2024:KHC:39438 CRL.P No. 4529 of 2024 dated 15.07.2024. This petitioner being accused No.1, is the assailant and he is the author of fatal injury by stabbing the deceased with a knife. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
12. Learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manish Slsodla Vs. Directorate of Enforcement1 and drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph No.53 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
53. XXX "The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception."
This principle of law cannot be disputed. But the facts of the case dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court is to be taken into consideration, it was the case under the Prevention of Money 1 2024 SCC Online SC 1920 -8- NC: 2024:KHC:39438 CRL.P No. 4529 of 2024 Laundering Act, 2002 and under such circumstance, such directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court were made, but the same cannot be applied to the accused who has committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC, where the life of the person was taken away and is punishable either with death or with life imprisonment. Contention of the learned Senior Advocate that the case will fall at the most under Section 304 (2) of IPC and not under Section 302 cannot be accepted at this stage. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
13. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7