Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Safwan @ vs State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1894
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3420 OF 2020
BETWEEN
Mohammed Safwan @
Datta Safwan
S/o Hassainar
A/a 24 years
R/at 24 years
R/at D.No.2/86
Kantarabettu House
Ulaibettu Village & Post
Mangalore, D.K.-574145.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Kethan Kumar, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka
By Mangalore Rural Police Station
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore - 560 001.
... Respondent
(By Sri. Divakar M. Maddur, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to, enlarge the
petitioner on bail in Cr.No.422/2014 registered by
Mangalore Rural Police Station, Mangalore for the offence
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 354,
324, 326, 307 and 397 r/w 149 of IPC.
:2:
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, through
video conferencing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by Mohammed Safwan @ Datta Safwan who is arraigned as Accused No.40 in the FIR, Accused No.42 in the charge sheet and Accused No.25 in C.C.No.971/2018 arose out of Crime No.422/2014 of Mangalore rural police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 354, 324, 326, 307, 397 r/w 149 of IPC. The accused is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest. Therefore, the counsel for the accused prays to enlarge him on regular bail amongst the grounds urged therein.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and so also, learned HCGP for the State appearing through video conferencing.
3. It is transpired in the complaint theory that the complaint was traveling from Ulaibettu, Mangalore along with her friend Babitha and her mother in an auto- rickshaw on 05.12.2014 at about 9.55 p.m to attend a :3: marriage function at Parari. When they reached Ulaibettu Junction, it is alleged that about 200 Muslim youth armed with deadly weapons, stopped the said auto-rickshaw and they forcibly dragged the complainant, her mother and her friend from the auto-rickshaw and started assaulting them and also snatched the purse of one Praveen and gold chain of Smt.Yashoda and also damaged the auto- rickshaw. When they raised hue and cry, people from surrounding areas came to their rescue and at that time the assailants left the place. Thereafter the injured was shifted to Hospital in a car and admitted as inpatient. The respondent police recorded the statement of Kumari Sowmya at the Hospital where she was admitted for treatment. Based upon the complaint, the case in crime No.422/2014 came to be registered against 44 accused persons for aforesaid offences as reflected in the FIR.
4. Subsequent to the registration of the crime against the accused persons, that this accused along with other accused persons had approached the trial court by filing a petition in Crl.Misc.541/2015 seeking anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the trial Court vide order dated :4: 04.07.2015 allowed the petition and granted the anticipatory bail. The petitioner did not comply the stipulated conditions granted in the bail order.
5. After completion of the investigation the respondent police filed charge sheet against the accused in S.C.No.49/2015. But the case against the petitioner/accused was split up and a split up charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.971/2018 and the matter is pending before JMFC-III Court, Mangalore and the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.25 in the split up case. The petitioner was arrested on 15.06.2020 by the respondent police and since then he is in judicial custody as submitted by petitioner's counsel.
6. It is in this background the learned counsel for the petitioner who has taken me through the allegations made against this accused who is said to have participated with other accused in committing the alleged offences. But there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed offence as alleged. The IO has already laid the split up charge sheet against this accused. There is no strong prima-facie material made :5: against the accused but he is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest. However, the prosecution has filed a petition under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. to withdraw the prosecution launched against the accused persons and Crime No.422/2014 is one among them. But the said petition came to be rejected by the trial Court. The order of rejection came to be challenged before this Court in Crl.P.No.5514/2019 and the same is pending consideration. However, the counsel for the petitioner in further submitted that the accused is ready to abide any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail the accused. These are all the contentions as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for regular bail.
7. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent - State has taken me through the averments made in the complaint and so also reiterated the substance in the charge sheet laid against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.971/2018 arose out of crime No.422/2014. It is relevant to refer that though the anticipatory bail has been granted by the Sessions Court, D.K.Mangalore in :6: Crl.Misc.541/2015 by imposing certain suitable conditions, but this accused did not comply the stipulated condition and that itself indicates that there are prima facie materials against this accused in committing the alleged offences with other accused as reflected in the materials secured by the IO during the course of investigation. The case against the accused is split up and split up charge sheet is laid against him in C.C.No.971/2018 which is pending before the Court of JMFC-III Court, Mangalore and this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.25. The crime came to be registered in the year 2014 for the alleged offences and more over, the split up charge sheet is laid against this petitioner, after lapse of four years in C.C.No.971/2018. Therefore, the accused do not deserve any relief of bail as sought for by him. These are all the contentions as taken by learned HCGP and seeking for dismissal of bail petition.
8. It is in this context of the contention as taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner by urging various grounds and also referring the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme of India in the case of Siddaram :7: Satlingapa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC
694. However, in this reliance the Hon'ble Apex court has held that grant of anticipatory bail cannot be for limited period and shall continue to be there till the final report is filed unless there is any change in the offences alleged.
9. It is relevant to refer that the FIR has been recorded by the Mangalore Rural Police based upon the complaint of Kum.Sowmya relating to case in Crime No.422/2014 as reflected in the FIR. Subsequent to the registration of crime against the accused, the IO has taken up the case for investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused persons in S.C.No.49/2018. But this petitioner being arraigned as an accused did not comply the stipulated condition in the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions court. Therefore, the case was split against him and split up charge sheet was laid in C.C.No.971/2018. However, once the charge sheet has been laid against the accused it is implied that the materials for which it is required to be included in the charge sheet as collected by the IO during the course of investigation by recording the statement of witnesses and :8: so also drew the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. Therefore, it is said that paramount consideration while granting bail to the accused are whether the accused is available for facing of trial, whether there are any antecedents about the accused and so also, whether the accused has to flight from justice and causing hindrance of the progress of charge sheeted case against him and so also, threatening witnesses on the parts of the prosecution. But in the instant case, the IO has already laid the split up charge sheet against the petitioner/accused. Therefore, the accused is not required for the investigating agency. If the accused is supposed to be kept behind bars for a longer period, certainly the benefit as sought under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. for withdrawing of the case in Crime No.422/2014 by the competent authority would become a futile exercise. However, for consideration of this bail petition, detailed documentation is not required and moreover, at this stage it does not require any detailed discussion of the materials secured by the IO in order to lay the main charge sheet and so also, split up charge sheet against the accused. :9:
Whereas, learned HCGP for the State contends that if the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case. This apprehension could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the accused is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner arraigned as Accused No.40 in the FIR, Accused No.42 in the charge sheet and Accused No.25 in C.C.No.971/2018 arose out of Crime No.422/2014 of Mangalore Rural Police station is hereby allowed and he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner/Accused shall execute bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of the JMFC-III Court, Mangalore, D.K.;: 10 :
ii) Petitioner/Accused shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.
iii) Petitioner/Accused shall appear before the competent court of law on all the dates of hearing without fail.
iv) Petitioner/Accused shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, if necessary.
v) Petitioner/Accused shall not indulge in any criminal activities hence forth.
vi) Petitioner/Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mangalore, D.K. without prior permission from the competent court of law.
If the Petitioner/Accused violate any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE DKB