Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Gouse @ Mamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2018
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200013/2018
Between:
Mohammad Gouse @ Mamma
S/o Mohammed Saleem,
Age 19 years, Occ. Student,
R/o Iqbal Colony, Kalaburagi.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Rajesh Doddamani, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Through University P.S., Kalaburagi
Represented by the
Addl. State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench.
... Respondent
(By Sri Mallikarjuna Sahukar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow this petition and enlarge the
petitioner/accused No.3 (as per FIR) on bail in connection
with Crime No.411/2017 registered by the University Police
2
Station, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under
Sections 353, 324, 307, 332, 333 read with Section 34 of
IPC, and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 now pending on the file of III
ADDL. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Kalaburagi.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a student and is aged about 19 years and is pursuing a Diploma Course in Shetty Polytechnic, Gulbarga and that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him.
3. Petitioner is before this Court under the provision of Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying that he be directed to be released on bail in Crime No.411/2017 of University Police Station of M.B.Nagar Circle. The petitioner has placed on record the admission ticket issued by the Board of Technical Examination, Palace Road, Bangalore enabling the petitioner to participate in the Diploma 3 examination conducted by it. The said document is not denied by the respondent-police.
4. Complainant is one Waheed Kotal working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Farahatabad Police Station. That he was directed to investigate and arrest the accused person in Crime No.207/2017 registered with the Farahatabad Police and in Crime No.407/2017 registered with the University Police Station and that upon instructions of the Circle Inspector of Police of M.B.Nagar Circle Police, the complainant commenced investigation and that on 30.11.2017 when he was searching for the accused along with his personnel, he received an information from the control room at about 3.00 a.m. on 01.12.2017 stating that certain un-known accused in Crime No.409/2017 of University Police Station and in Crime No.399/2017 of Grameen Police Station were moving on motor cycles bearing Reg.No.KA-34-EA-1477 and KA-32-EB-3457. That the informant set up a naka- bandi and at about 5.30 a.m. in the morning when he was 4 searching for the accused persons at the Radio Station, he was forwarded certain information by the personnel of the Grameen Police Station and that at about 7.00 a.m. in the morning they arrived at Mango Garden infront of a semi constructed building and saw two motor cycles parked therein and as the numbers tallied with the numbers given by the control room, he along with his personnel went near the semi constructed building and at that point of time three persons came from the under construction building holding swords, machete, sticks and one person threw a brick on the jeep due to which windshield of the jeep broke. That thereafter the accused persons assaulted on the left shoulder of the first informant and another accused assaulted one Keshavaray with a machete in the stomach and one accused assaulted Hussain Basha on the head with a stick and in the meanwhile the informant took out his service revolver and fired in the air in self defense upon which one of the accused ran towards him holding a sword when informant pointed the revolver at the said accused tried to run away, upon which the informant shot the 5 accused on the leg and in this confusion the other two accused managed to escape from the spot. That upon enquiry the said person revealed his name and also the name of the accused who was holding the machete as Rehman and the one holding the stick as Mamma @ Gouse. It is further alleged that the accused admitted that they were hiding after having committed robbery at Naganahalli Cross and Biddapur Colony during night hours. On the said facts and circumstance, the FIR came to be lodged and registered as Crime No.411/2017 by the University Police for the offences punishable under Section 353, 324, 307, 332, 333 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that admittedly the petitioner was not found at the place where the raiding police party is said to have arrested. The first accused named Mohammed Irfan S/o Mohammed Yousuf, even as per the version of the 6 complainant there were only three accused. He would submit that the place where the accused are alleged to have been in hiding is at short distance away from the police training school and it is highly improbable that the accused would have sought to take shelter there if they were habitual offenders. He would also submit that police have not made any incriminating recovery of either the proceeds of the crime or any dangerous weapons and that the petitioner hails from a respectable family and is a law abiding citizen, pursuing a career in academics and if at this juncture the petitioner is deprived of the opportunity to pursue his academic career and is painted as an offender, it would virtually deprive him of a career and thus of an opportunity to lead a normal life.
6. Per contra the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner is an habitual offender and he would submit that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in Crime No.411/2017 dated 01.12.2017 with the M.B.Nagar Circle Police Station and in 7 Crime No.314 registered on 30.09.2017 with the University Police Station and Crime no.407/2017 registered on 29.11.2017 with the University Police Station. He would also submit that, apart from he has also involved in the crimes registered as Crime Nos..207/2017, 388/2017 and 399/2017.
7. Per contra the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaints were against un-known persons and after the arrest of the petitioner in the above crime number he has been implicated and shown as an accused in other crime numbers also and he would submit that the respondent police are trying to take undue advantage of the circumstance and it is highly improbable that a person could have committed serious crimes of this nature and gone un-noticed. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is not without substance. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in other cases on the alleged voluntary statement, said to have been made by the petitioner with the respondent police and said 8 statements admitting the participation in the offences are said to have been made after arrest in the present case i.e., in Crime No.411/2017.
8. From the above narration it is apparent that the respondent police have tried to create a picture that he is an habitual offender and is committed to a life of a crime. It is inevitable to note that all the offences alleged against the petitioner are those punishable under Sections 392 and 394 of IPC pertaining to robbery. In all, the petitioner is alleged to have participated in seven acts of committing robbery. But the ironical aspect is that there is no recovery of a single article or the proceeds of the crime or any weapons from the possession of the accused. The version of the prosecution is that he is an habitual offender if is to be accepted the recovery of proceeds of the crime or dangerous weapons is a sine quo non It is surprising to note that that such a habitual offender is not even in possession of any dangerous or deadly weapons. All these facts put together and the totality of the circumstance do 9 not inspire confidence in the Court with regard to the allegation that petitioner is an habitual offender. Further the academic pursuits as claimed by the petitioner are not denied by the respondent police. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.411/2017 registered by the University Police Station, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 324, 307, 332 and 333 red with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 pending on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Kalaburagi, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi;
ii) Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.10
iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to influence the prosecution or tamper with the evidence or the witnesses or the prosecution.
iv) Petitioner shall co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the trial.
The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in the disposal of the petition. The observations are made only for the purpose of disposal and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by the observations made by this Court.
Petition is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE sn