Karnataka High Court
Imtiyaz S/O Abdul Aziz Dhalayat vs The State Of Karnataka, on 1 August, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 1ST DAY OF august, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
Crl.P.No.101398/2017
BETWEEN
IMTIYAZ S/O. ABDUL AZIZ DHALAYAT
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.297, ASHOK NAGAR,
BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MAHIBOOB S.HALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY A.P.M.C. POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI,
(REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO RELEASE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO. 117
OF 2017 OF APMC POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 363, 364(A), 368,
384 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 (A) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT-
1957.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in APMC Yard Police Station, Belagavi in Crime No.117/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 368, 384 of IPC and Section 25(A) of Indian Arms Act, 1957. Since from the arrest, the accused is in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner praying for enlargement of the petitioner/accused on regular bail among the grounds urged therein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP for the respondent - State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument has contended that on the filing the of the complaint by the complainant, crime came to be registered for the alleged offences and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation that the petitioner/accused was participated in the commission of offence with other accused by kidnapping the complainant as well as extortion :3: as narrated in the complaint. The petitioner being arrayed as accused No.2 in the crime, which is registered for the alleged offences. As the accused were demanding ransom from the complainant, which is narrated in the complaint in detail. On 13.04.2017 at about 10:30 p.m. when the complainant has filed complaint alleging that he was present near by the house, which was under construction. One Imran, who has called the complainant and asked for ransom and when the complainant has not agreed, who had been took to Hanuman Nagar circle. By that time the accused person in all four persons were came in Innova car bearing No.KA-22/9895, they being arrayed as accused persons and demanding him to pay rupees two crores as ransom, if not paid they will take away his life by pointing pistol to him. It is further contended that the accused is an innocent person and he has not at all committed the alleged offences and despite of it the crime came to be registered by the respondent - Police against the accused just to give harassment to them and there is no direct overt act attributed against the petitioner for the alleged offences. However, the accused is in judicial custody :4: since form the date of arrest. It is further contended that the accused is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to him. Therefore, praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned SPP for the respondent- *State contended that in pursuance of the filing of the complaint by the complainant, case in Crime No.117/2017 has been registered for the alleged offences and thereafter proceed with the case for investigation as wherein the accused were demanding ransom in a sum of rupees two crores from the complainant along with other accused and the same has been incorporated in the complaint. However, the case is still under investigation by the Investigating Officer and also it requires to be recorded the statement of the witnesses as well as to collect the material documents. Therefore, it is said that there are prima facie materials against the accused persons for commission of the offence. Therefore, the accused is not deserving for bail, if the accused is supposed to be released on bail certainly he would come in :5: the way of the prosecution case and destroy the evidence and praying to reject the bail petition.
5. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned SPP for the respondent-State are concerned, it is relevant to state that on the filing of the complaint by the complainant crime came to be registered in Crime No.117/2017 for the aforesaid offences. It could be seen in the material allegations of the complaint that the accused were abducted the complainant and also demanded ransom of rupees two crores, but subsequent to registering the crime against the accused for the allegations made in FIR recorded and it is still under investigation by the Investigating Officer by reciording the statement of witnesses as well as to collect the material documents. Therefore, at this stage it is said that it does not require any detail discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner as there are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the learned SPP submits that if the accused are supposed to be released on bail, certainly he :6: would come in the way of prosecution case and destroy the evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned SPP could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused No.2 is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with likesum two sureties to the satisfaction of the committal Court as where the case in Crime No.117/2017 is pending.
(2) The petitioner shall co-operate with Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.
(3) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.:7:
(4) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month as per the english monthly calendar in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of six months before the concerned SHO.
(5) The petitioner shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner/accused No.2 violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vnp*