Karnataka High Court
Syed Faisal @ Faisal vs State By on 29 October, 2022
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9518 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SYED FAISAL @ FAISAL
S/O SYED RAFEEQ,
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
R/AT 5TH CROSS,
GANDHINAGAR, K.G.HALLI,
BENGALURU-560045.
(ADDRESS AS PER REMAND APPLICATION)
R/AT NO.14, 3RD CROSS,
GANDHINAGAR, 1ST STAGE,
K.G.HALLI, BANGALORE-560045.
(ADDRESS AS PER ADHAR CARD)
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SYED NAUSHIRVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY K.G.HALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.277/2022 REGISTERED BY
KADUGONDANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 323 READ
WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI
ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail in Crime No.277/2022 registered by Kadugondana police station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent- State and perused the records.
3. The complainant has set the law in motion by lodging the complaint. The present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. It is alleged by the complainant that on 12.08.2022 at 2.30 pm, she received a telephonic call from 3 one Ayesha informing that there was a fight between the students in the college and then, Mohammed Saad and his associates have assaulted and stabbed the son of the complainant and he was admitted in Banasvadi Specialty Hospital. Immediately, the complainant rushed to the hospital and there, she found that her son was stabbed. Subsequently, the injured Mohammed Arbaz succumbed to the injuries. In this regard, the complaint came to be lodged.
4. The petitioner was arrested during the course of the investigation and was remanded to judicial custody. He has moved a regular bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge and his bail petition came to be rejected.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no material evidence as against the present petitioner and he was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident and statement of the complainant is also silent regarding the presence of the petitioner at the spot. He would also contend that the 4 allegations were directed against accused No.1 and hence, he would seek for admitting him on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned HCGP would seriously opposed the bail petition.
7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that earlier on 11.08.2022, there was galata in the college in respect of social activities during the dance programme and with this background, on the next day, the alleged incident was said to have taken place. The allegations of the prosecution is that accused No.1-Mohammed Saadh along with his other associates picked up quarrel with Mohammed Firaz and Mohammed Arbaz and when Mohammed Arbaz tried to resolve the dispute, he was stabbed and Mohammed Arbaz on the way to the hospital died.
8. It is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arrest of the present petitioner was based on the CC TV footages taken. On perusal of the 5 CCTV footages, it is evident the presence of the petitioner at the spot is noticeable. However, the CCTV footages does not disclose actual incident as the said area was not covered under CCTV footages but the records disclose the presence of the petitioner at the spot and he was proceeding towards the place of incident. Further the records also disclose that the principal of the college rushed to the spot and he was an eye witness and he was present at the time of incident, when it was occurred. The records further disclose that the investigation agency has not even bothered to record the statement of the principal who was an eye witness. Even the complaint discloses that the intimation was given by one Ayesha to the complainant and CCTV footages clearly disclose that she was present at the spot. Even, Investigating Officer has not made any attempt to record the statement of Ayesha. It is submitted that in spite of issuance of three notices, she did not turn up but it was for the Investigating Officer to secure her and record her statement. It is evident that there is serious attempt for tampering the prosecution 6 witnesses and the matter is still at the stage of investigation. Though, all along with it is alleged that the petitioner was not present there at the spot but records speak the different story. The presence of the petitioner can be easily noticeable and his role is required to be considered only after conclusion of the entire investigation. The offence is under Section 302 of IPC and looking to these facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case wherein the discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petition being devoid of merits, does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JS/-