Karnataka High Court
Naveedpasha @ Naveed vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6949/2013
BETWEEN:
Naveedpasha @ Naveed
Ahamad,
S/o. Khaleed Ahamad,
Aged 22 years,
R/o. No.597, Sufiya Manjil,
Gilani Road,
Udayagiri,
Mysore-570 019. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. Chandrashekar. R.P., Adv. for
C.H. Hanumantharaja, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Hunsur Town P.S.,
Mysore-570 019.
By City Crime Branch Police,
N.T.Pet,
Bangalore City-560 052.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.
No.118/2011 of Hunsur Town P.S., Mysore Dist., and in
S.C.No.1027/2012 on the file of the P.O., FTC-XIII,
Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections
364(A) of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.7 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 364(A) of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.118/2011. Subsequently, the charge sheet was also filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364(A), 302, 201, 212 and 342 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.06.2011 at 11.30 a.m., the complainant appeared before the Hunsur Town police station and lodged a complaint alleging that his son Sudhindra and Vigesh residng at Hunsur Town are studying in II B.Com at Mahajans College, Mysore. They left Hunsur in a KSRTC bus to attend the examination in their college. In between 2-45 p.m. and 3-00 p.m., the 3 complainant received a call from the mobile phone bearing No.8971703345 of Sudhindra to his mobile No.9448938854 and the person from the other end spoke to him telling that his son Sudhindra and Vignesh are in his custody and they would be released if a sum of Rupees 5 Crore is paid, lest they would be done to death. It is further alleged in the complaint that one Mr. Karthik, a classmate of Sudhindra returned to Hunsur after finishing his examination in the same college and told the complainant that Sudhindra did not attend examination on that day and thus, some body might have kidnapped both Sudhindra and Vignesh for extracting money. On the basis of the complaint, case has been registered by the respondent police. During the course of the investigation, the police have arrayed the petitioner as accused No.7 along with other accused persons for the alleged offence.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.7 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that as per the prosecution case, C.Ws.81, 83 and 84 are said to be the eye witnesses to the alleged incident of kidnapping of two students, who are the deceased in this case. Looking to their statement, they have stated that test identification parade was conducted in the presence of the Taluka Executive Magistrate and the witnesses have identified only accused Nos.2 and 3 who are said to be at Sl. Nos.4 and 7. The learned Counsel submitted that they have not at all identified the present petitioner, who is accused No.7. He also submitted that accused No.8 had approached this Court in Crl.P. No.7891/2012 seeking his release on bail and this Court by its order dated 22.2.2013 has allowed the said petition and released accused No.8 on bail. The present petitioner-accused No.7 is also standing on the same footing as that of accused No.8. He submitted that though the alleged eye witnesses C.W. Nos.81, 83 and 84 have not identified the petitioner-accused No.7, even then in the charge sheet, the police have mentioned that the petitioner has been identified by the said eye witnesses. This aspect 5 has already been discussed in the bail order in respect of accused No.8. Hence, he submitted that looking to the head of the charge sheet, the same thing is mentioned in respect of the petitioner-accused No.7 also. There is no basis for the investigating officer to make such a mention in the head of the charge sheet about the present petitioner. Hence, he submitted that on the ground of parity like accused No.8, the present petitioner is also entitled for bail by imposing reasonable conditions. He submitted that accused No.3 had also applied for bail. This Court after considering statement of the witnesses-C.W. Nos.81, 83 ad 84 and as it is noticed that they have identified accused No.3 in the test identification parade, the bail application of accused No.3 was rejected by this Court.
5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that though in the test identification parade, the witnesses have not identified the petitioner accused No.7, perusal of their statement recorded by the investigating officer makes it clear the involvement of 6 the petitioner in kidnapping the deceased students. The learned HCGP submitted that looking to their statement, the prosecution has placed prima facie materials and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, the charge sheet materials produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the other materials on record.
7. Looking to the test identification parade, the alleged eye witnesses have identified only two persons accused NOs.2 and 3 who are said to be at Sl. Nos.4 and 7. It is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged eye witnesses have identified the petitioner in the test identification parade. Therefore, the contention of the learned HCGP that though the alleged eye witnesses have not identified the petitioner in the test identification parade, they have stated in their statement about the involvement of the petitioner- accused No.7 and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail, cannot be accepted.
7
8. I have perused the order dated 22.2.2013 passed by this Court in Crl. P. No.7891/2012. The observation made in the said bail order squarely applicable to the case of the present petitioner. Therefore, on the ground of parity, compared to the bail order of accused No.8, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. So far as the apprehension of the prosecution, to secure the presence of the petitioner before the investigating officer or before the trial court, stringent condition can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution.
9. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364(A), 302, 201, 212 and 342 read with Section 34 registered in respondent police station Crime No. 118/2011, subject to following conditions:-
I. The petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and shall offer a solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court. 8 II. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
III. The petitioner shall attend the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-