Karnataka High Court
Naushad vs State By on 16 October, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5036 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Naushad
S/o. Hasham,
Aged about 49 years,
Opp. To Arbar Church,
3rd Church Amara Jyothi Layout,
Thanisanda-560024.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. R.Ranganath Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
State by
The Station House Officer,
Thalgattapura Police Station,
Bengaluru Rural
(Represented by the State Public Prosecutor)
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560001.
... Respondent
(By Sri. K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.35/2020 of
Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence
2
punishable under Sections 143, 109, 115, 118, 302, 120B, 201
& 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders, this day
through video conferencing, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner is accused no.11 in the charge sheet filed in connection with offences punishable under Sections 143, 109, 115, 118, 302, 120-B and 201 r/w 149 IPC. Initially FIR was registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC in Cr.No.35/2020 of the respondent - police station.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that actually the offence that can be invoked against the petitioner is section 118 of IPC for, what is alleged against him is that he facilitated for causing the death of one Madhava by introducing accused 4, 6 and 7 to accused no.3. Therefore it is his argument that the petitioner is 3 not involved in the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner is permanent resident of Bengaluru. Charge sheet is already filed and therefore bail may be granted to the petitioner.
4. The High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition by submitting that the petitioner was no doubt engaged by the main accused, but the charge sheet discloses that he made two attempts for eliminating one Madhava. At last it was accused no.4 who inflicted injury to Madhava, there are clear allegations that but for the petitioner, the other accused would not have killed Madhava and therefore there is no ground for granting bail.
5. The charge sheet shows that the deceased Madhava was an industrialist possessed of huge properties. Accused no.1 is his son and accused no.2 is his brother and they both wanted their shares in the properties. Madhava did not agree and for this reason 4 they wanted to eliminate the deceased and engaged supari killers. In this background for the first time, accused no.8 and 10 were engaged, but their attempt failed. Then the petitioner and accused no.12 were engaged for playing black magic in order to kill Madhava and this attempt was also not successful and therefore the petitioner introduced accused no.4, 6 and 7 to accused no. 3. In the last attempt accused no.4 killed Madhava. Therefore it is clear that the role attributed to the petitioner is only that he facilitated for causing the death of Madhava firstly by playing black magic and then by introducing accused no.4, 6 and 7 to accused no. 3. For this reason the offences under Section 118 and 201 of IPC are invoked against the petitioner.
6. So far the offence under Section 118 of IPC is concerned, if the prosecution is able to prove its case, the petitioner will have to be sentenced for imprisonment for a period which may extend upto seven years. He is 5 permanent resident of Bengaluru. Investigation is completed and his presence can be secured before the court. Therefore bail can be granted. Hence the following:
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
ii. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The petitioner is subjected to the following conditions:
a. He shall not threaten the witnesses and destroy the evidence in whatsoever manner.
b. He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of trial.
c. Till trial is over he has to mark his
attendance every week before the
6
respondent - police station on a Sunday between 9.00 am and 12.00 noon.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd