Karnataka High Court
Alla Baksh vs State By on 12 November, 2020
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5677/2020
BETWEEN:
Alla Baksh
Aged about 43 years
R/at No.36, Gupta Layout
Near Siyachin Church
Sarapalya, Bengaluru-560 042.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Ranganath Reddy R., Advocate)
AND:
State by
Station House Officer
Thalaghattapura Police Station
Bengaluru City-
Represented by State Pubic Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhy, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.35/2020 of Thalaghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru
City, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 109,
115, 118, 302, 120B, 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders 'through
Video Conference', this day, the Court made the
following:-
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.12 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.35/2020 of Thalaghattapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 115, 143, 118, 201, 109, 120B, 302 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri.Ranganath Reddy for the petitioner-accused virtually and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the case of prosecution in brief is that; Deceased and accused were brothers. There was property dispute between them in respect of division of properties including industry and business. In that light, accused Nos.1 and 2 to eliminate the deceased contacted accused No.8 by giving supari, in turn accused No.8 introduced -3- accused Nos.9 and 10 to accused Nos.1 and 2 in order to murder the deceased. Accused Nos.1 and 2 agreed to pay Rs.1 crore to accused Nos.9 and 10 and paid an advance amount of Rs.10 lakh and accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 shared the advance amount of Rs.10 lakhs, but they delayed in committing the said act of murder. Subseqeutnly, CWs.20 and 21 brought accused No.3 and introduced accused No.1 and he informed that the deceased is not giving any share to him and if he has been murdered, he will get full property and told him that he will give Rs.25 lakhs as a supari and as an advance he paid Rs.5 lakh to accused No.3 and accused No.3 after taking the amount along with accused Nos.11 and 12 tried to play a black magic and kill the deceased. But that was not successful, to which accused Nos.1 and 2 asked accused No.3 as to why they have not executed the work entrusted to him otherwise and that they have to return the amount. It is further case of complainant that accused No.11 introduced accused No.4 to accused No.3 in the month of January, 2020. Accused -4- No.4 introduced accused Nos.6 and 7 to accused No.3 for the purpose of murdering the deceased and told that they will also accompany with him. In that light, accused No.3 took Rs.25 lakhs as supari with an intention to share the amount and he also introduced accused Nos.4, 6, 7 to accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused Nos.1 and 2 instigated and told about the property dispute to the accused persons. On 12.02.2020, accused No.3 along with accused No.5 came to Bellary and met accused Nos.1 and 2 and took an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the expenses. Accused Nos.1 and 2 told that they will pay the amount only after executing the work and accused No.3 told that for the purpose of the said act, he is required a vehicle to which accused No.1 gave his two-wheeler bearing registration No.KA-35-Q-5678 Pulsar motorbike and on 13.02.2020 accused Nos.3 and 5 went and purchased three knives and came to Bengaluru and there they met accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 and they went on Feiro motorbike bearing registration No.KA-04-EC-3786 and accused Nos.4 and 5 -5- went on pulsar motorbike and came near the house of the deceased in order to stay that night. Accused No.4 booked the hotel room and accused Nos.3 and 4 stayed in Room No.305. It is alleged that on 14.02.2020, accused Nos.3 and 4 gave knife to accused No.7 and asked him to watch and they also gave a knife to accused No.5 and they gave a pulsar vehicle to accused No.6 and asked him to watch for coming of the deceased. Accused No.3 came in an auto- rickshaw and was watching, at that time the deceased came near metro cash and carry at about 1.30 p.m., when he came near Royal Palm layout to come to his house by walk, accused Nos.4 and 7 came on motorbike from backside and accused No.4 got down from the motorbike and slit the neck of the deceased and accused No.7 who was on motorbike kept started the said motorbike, accused No.4 after the assault along with accused No.7 went away from that place. Accused Nos.3 and 11 with an intention to screen the offence thrown the mobile phone somewhere and accused persons with an intention to done away with -6- the life of the deceased in collusion with accused Nos.1 and 2 by taking supari have committed the murder of the deceased. On the basis of complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.12 that actually the offence that can be invoked against the petitioner is Section 118 of IPC, what is alleged against him is that he facilitated for causing the death of one Madhava by introducing accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 to accused No.3. Therefore, it is his argument that the petitioner is not involved in the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner is permanent resident of Bengaluru. Charge sheet is already filed and therefore bail may be granted to the petitioner.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition by submitting that the petitioner was no doubt engaged by the main accused, but the charge sheet disclose that he made two attempts for eliminating -7- one Madhava. At last it was accused No.4 who inflicted injury to Madhava, there are clear allegations that but for the petitioner, the other accused would not have killed Madhava and therefore there is no ground for granting bail.
6. The charge sheet shows that the deceased Madhava was an industrialist possessed of huge properties. Accused No.1 is his son and accused No.2 is his brother and they both wanted their shares in the properties. Madhava did not agree and for this reason they wanted to eliminate the deceased and engaged supari killers. In this background for the first time, accused Nos.8 and 10 were engaged, but their attempt failed. Then the petitioner and accused No.11 were engaged for playing black magic in order to kill Madhava and this attempt was also not successful and therefore the petitioner introduced accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 to accused No.3. In the last attempt accused No.4 killed Madhava. Therefore, it is clear that the role attributed to the petitioner is only that he facilitated for causing the death of Madhava firstly by -8- playing black magic and then by introducing accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 to accused No.3. For this reason the offences under Sections 118 and 201 of IPC are invoked against the petitioner.
7. So far the offence under Section 118 of IPC is concerned, if the prosecution is able to prove its case, the petitioner will have to be sentenced for imprisonment for a period which may extend upto seven years. He is a permanent resident of Bengaluru. Investigation is completed and his presence can be secured before the Court. Therefore, bail can be granted. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. Petition is allowed.
ii. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The petitioner is subjected to the following conditions:-9-
a. He shall not threaten the witnesses and destroy the evidence in whatsoever manner. b. He shall regularly appear before the trial Court till conclusion of trial.
c. Till trial is over he has to mark his
attendance every week before the
respondent - police station on Sunday
between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*AP/-