Karnataka High Court
Irfan S/O Feroz vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 June, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200595/2022
BETWEEN:
IRFAN S/O FEROZ,
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: OPTICAL BUSINESS,
R/O IRAANI COLONY, BIDAR
KARNATAKA STATE-585403
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: SIDDARTHA MARLINGAPPA
& SRI: SANTHOSH PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
GANDHI GUNJ POLICE STATION BIDAR,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585105.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.119/2020 OF GANDHI GUNJ POLICE STATION BIDAR,
DIST: BIDAR (IN C.C.NO.1762/2021), PENDING ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL J.M.F.C-II AT BIDAR FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 143, 147, 148, 535, 332, 307, 504, 506
R/W SEC.149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.12 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.119/2020 of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar (in C.C.No.1762/2021) pending on the file of Principal JMFC-II, Bidar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 353, 332, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Manjangouda.
2. Heard Sri. Siddartha Marlingappa and Santhosh Patil, learned counsels for the petitioner and Sri. Gururaj V Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.12 and he has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Initially, the 3 FIR came to be registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 only and the charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 14. Even as per charge sheet, there is general and omnibus allegation against accused Nos.2 to 14 that they have committed the offence and assaulted the police officials i.e., CWs.1, 6 and 7, when they went to apprehend accused No.1. In fact, no such incident had taken place. The petitioner was apprehended on 26.06.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.107/2019 which was tried in S.C.No.1/2022 and he was acquitted in the said case. Thereafter, on body warrant, the petitioner was abused and he was taken to custody. All other co-accused are on bail. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on principles of parity. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that 4 would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner-accused No.12 for having committed the offences. He is the habitual offender against whom more than eight cases are registered. In the present case, he along with other accused, assaulted the police officials (CWs.1, 6 and 7) and caused injuries to them. After due investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 14 for the above said offences. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he will involve in commission of similar offence. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
5
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
6. The allegations made against the petitioner and other accused are of serious nature. When the police officials went to apprehend accused No.1, it is stated that accused Nos.2 to 14 by forming themselves unlawful assembly, prevented public servants from discharging their duty and tried to cause their death, assaulted them and criminally intimidated the Police Sub-Inspector of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar, who himself is the first informant, has specifically stated that unruly mob attacked and caused injuries to the police officials while discharging their duties. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, it is not in dispute that the other co-accused are already enlarged on bail. It is stated that 6 the petitioner is habitual offender having more than eight cases registered against him. Even though the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail, the learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner will not involve in any of the criminal cases hereinafter and also submits that necessary conditions may be imposed in that regard. Considering the said undertaking and submission, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. It is made clear that if in case the petitioner involves in any criminal case, the bail granted in his favour is liable to be cancelled.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.7
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.119/2020 of Gandhi Gunj Police Station, Bidar, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties 8 and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMJ