Karnataka High Court
Aslam Sab Mehaboobsab Ramadurg vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100037/2014
BETWEEN:
ASLAM SAB MEHABOOBSAB RAMADURG
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE
R/O. MYADAR ONI, OLD HUBLI
HUBLI.
DIST: DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.: VIJAY MALALI ADV. FOR M/S. PATIL & MALALI
ASSOCIATES)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KAMARIPETH P S HUBLI
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.M.BN\ANAKAR, ADDL.SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN KAMARIPETH P S CRIME 22/2013 AND IN CC
2
NO.1463/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C-II
COURT AT HUBLI DIST: DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 AND 436 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner making allegations that on 6/4/2013 at about 5.30 pm, the accused-petitioner went to the pan shop of the complainant by name Mujpal Abdul Ajiz, with a bottle of petrol, he blowed the petrol on the face of the complainant and lit the fire, due to which the complainant has suffered 20-30% of burn injures to his face and other parts of his body. In the complaint, it is not stated what was the reason for the accused to do that particular act. Whether there was any ill will or hatred between the complainant and the accused. The charge sheet papers also disclose that the injured was admitted in the hospital and subsequently discharged. The said certificate also shows that he suffered grievous injury. There is absolutely no mention in the injury certificate that the said injuries are fatal in nature. There is no life threat so 3 far as complainant is concerned. The petitioner was arrested on 6/4/2013 and since then he has been in judicial custody. He is no more required for any further interrogation, investigation etc.
2. Under the above said circumstances, at this stage, it is very difficult to draw an interference that he had any illicit intention to kill the complainant as such. That has to be established during the course of full dressed trial.
3. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and necessary to release the petitioner on bail. The trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has suppressed before the Court, the rejection of previous bail petition by the same Court. But, this particular aspect may not be in straight jacket manner attributed to the accused, because it is the duty of the counsel who appear for the accused to ascertain what happened to the previous bail petition. Under the above said circumstances, that cannot be a ground to reject the bail petition if he is otherwise entitled to.
4
Hence, the following order is passed:-
ORDER Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court / trial Court as the case may be.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) He shall attend Committal / trial Court on all future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the 5 Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE Vmb