Karnataka High Court
Sabi-Ur-Rahman vs The State By Hunsur Town Police on 19 February, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6989/2013
BETWEEN:
Sabi-Ur-Rahman,
S/o. Jami-Ur-Rahman,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.481, II Stage,
Rajivi Nagar,
Mysore-570 019.
Karnataka State. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. Tahir, Adv.)
AND:
The State by Hunsur Town Police
CCB NT pet (Special Investigation)
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Complex Building,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
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 in S.C. No.109/2012 pending on the
file of the 34th Addl. Civil & S.J., Bangalore, for the
offence P/U/S 364 of IPC.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 364(a), 302, 201, 212, 342 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.118/2011.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the averment in the complaint are that on 8.6.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. the complainant H.C. Ashok Kumar appeared before Hunsur Town Police Sub-Inspector with a complaint alleging that his brother H.C.Mohan's son H.M.Sudhindra and his friend H.Vignesh, S/o H.S.Srinath, both residents of Hunsur left home to attend the II year BBM examination at Mahajan First Grade College, Jaylakshmipuram. On the very same day, at about 3.00 p.m. complainant's brother received a call from his son's mobile wherein some unknown persons threatened complainant's brother by saying 3 that his son and Vignesh are in their custody and they need a ransom of Rs.5 crores and if they did not adhere to their demand, they are going to finish their children. It is further alleged that on the very same day evening at about 6.00 p.m. Sudhindra's classmate by name Karthik came to their place and informed that both Sudhindra and Vignesh have not attended the examination, after which, the complainant came to the police station with the complaint. After receiving the complaint, initially, police have registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC and during investigation, police have arrayed the present petitioner as accused No.3 along with other accused persons for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that as against the present petitioner there is no material placed by the prosecution to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. The statement of the alleged eyewitnesses is not worth believable. Even as per the prosecution papers, one witness is saying that the incident has taken place at one particular place and the other witness is saying that it is in another place, hence, the statement of witnesses will not inspire credibility at this stage. Some of the accused persons have been granted bail by the trial Court and as well as by this Court. As per the prosecution papers, the allegations as against the present petitioner and accused No.6 are one and the same and that accused No.6 has been already granted with bail. Hence, on the ground of parity also, the present petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail. Learned counsel submitted that since from the date of arrest accused No.3 is in custody and the matter may take more time for the trial Court to 5 conclude the trial and to dispose of the case. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court and hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.
5. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that there is a prima facie case made out by the prosecution to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The statement of witnesses recorded during investigation goes to show that the present petitioner has committed the alleged offences. The offences alleged are also serious in nature. As such, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other charge sheet material collected by the Investigating Officer during 6 investigation, so also, the charge sheet material furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation goes to show the participation of petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences . Even the witnesses have identified the present petitioner before the competent authority. In the voluntary statement said to have been recorded by the police of the present petitioner it is stated by him that if he is taken to the said place he will show the place at which they have thrown the watch, purse and other materials belonging to the deceased. Regarding the identification of the present petitioner, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of one Smt.Aarthi and other witnesses wherein they have clearly mentioned and identified the present petitioner in the T.I.parade conducted by the competent authority. The materials on record clearly goes to show that present petitioner actively participated in the commission of the 7 alleged offences. From the present petitioner, the Investigating Officer has also recovered one knife and one mobile phone. Regarding the purchase of rope, petitioner has made voluntary statement that if he is taken, he will show the shop from which they have purchased the rope used for the purpose of committing the offences.
8. Considering all these materials on record, it cannot be said the prosecution has not placed prima facie material to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No.6 has been already granted with bail and on the ground of parity, petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail, perusing the materials collected during investigation of which, I have already referred to above, it cannot be said that the allegations as against accused No.6 and the present petitioner are one and the same. Therefore, the ground 8 of parity is not at all applicable to the present petitioner for releasing him on bail. There are reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner has committed the offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the present petitioner.
Accordingly, petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp