Karnataka High Court
Naveed S/O Muneerahmed Khaji vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 June, 2018
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
CRL.P.No.100537/2018
C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100537/2018
C/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100806/2018
IN CRL.P.NO.100537/2018
BILAL @ DOODWALA S/O UMAR KHAN
AGE:54 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE
RO HILL VIEW APARTMENT
ROOM NO.403, KOUSA
MUMBRA, MUMBAI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MAHIBOOB S. HALLI, SRI. L. R. NALATWAD, SRI. VIJAY S.
CHINIWAR & I.I. JALGAR , ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALMARUTI POLICE INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL WHO IS
ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.3 IN MALMARUTI P.S.CRIME
NO.117/2017 AND REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.652/2017 ON THE
FILE OF II JMFC, BELAGAVI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S.341, 342, 364, 120(B), 396, 201, 427, 506 R/W
34 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(A) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT-1959.
CRL.P.No.100537/2018
C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018
:2:
IN CRL.P.NO.100806/2018
BETWEEN:
NAVEED S/O MUNEERAHMED KHAJI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: NEAR MAHANT BHAVAN,
MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JALGAR ILMAIL DADESAHEB AND VIJAY CHINAWAR,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALMARUTI POLICE INSPECTOR,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
---
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL WHO IS
ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.5 IN C.C.NO.652 OF 2017 (MAL
MARUTI POLICE BELAGAVI CRIME NO.117/2017) PENDING ON
THE FILE OF II JMFC, BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 341, 342, 364, 120-B, 396, 201,
427, 506 READ WITH 35 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(A) OF INDIAN
ARMS ACT 1959.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100537/2018 is accused No.3 and petitioner in Criminal Petition No.100806/2018 is accused No.5 in C.C.No.652/2017 CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018:3: (Crime No.117/2017 of respondent-complainant Police Station) on the file of the II Addl. JMFC, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 364, 120(B), 396, 201, 427, 506 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25(A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959.
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that, on 19.02.2015, one Sri. Suresh Govind Redekar, a resident of Belagavi lodged a complaint with the respondent police alleging that his son by name Rohan Suresh Redekar, aged about 23 years was found missing since 18.02.2015 at 8.00 pm. The police registered the said complaint in their station Crime No.39/2015, as a complaint for finding a missing person. The said complaint was kept on the records of the police station for its investigation. In the meantime, on 14.05.2017, one Sri.B. R. Gaddekar, said to be the Police Inspector of CCB Special Police Station, Belagavi, submitted his report before the SHO of the respondent Police Station stating that, while he was investigating in Crime No.117/2017 of CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018:4: APMC Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 368 and 384 of the IPC, the accused therein by name Mujiffer, S/o.Mohammed Sheikh, revealed before him about another accused by name Naveed Khazi. Accordingly, the said Inspector took into possession the said Naveed Khazi and subjected him to interrogation, wherein it was revealed by the said Naveed Khazi that he, joined by other accused in the present Crime including Bilal - petitioner in Crl.P.No.100537/2018, all put together seven accused, assembled in the farmhouse of accused No.8 - Nazeer Ahamed Nadaf, a resident of Mahanteshnagar, Belagavi and hatched a conspiracy of committing kidnapping of one Suresh Redekar, a resident of Belagavi, to extract money from him. Accordingly, to execute their plan, about two years ago, one evening they watched the movements of Suresh Redekar and preplanning as to where he has to be stopped and abducted, distributed the task of his kidnapping among themselves. Accordingly, CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018:5: while the said Redekar said to have left his shop in his motor car, the accused followed him in an Innova motor car. On the way, by overtaking his car, they made the car of Redekar to stop and kidnapped him putting said Redekar in the Innova car, in which they were traveling. The accused took him to a distant place. On the way on National Highway No.4, after Hirebagewadi, in a place near Gugranatti, they came to know that the person whom they had abducted was not Suresh Redekar, but the kidnapped person was his son Rohan Redekar. However, they took said Rohan Redekar with them to Goa. On the way near Chorla Ghat, they robbed him with a golden chain and cell phone and also some cash, which was with the said Rohan and thinking that if he is allowed to go, he would reveal the incident and their identity to the people, the accused decided to put an end to his life. Accordingly, all the accused jointly committed his murder by stabbing him. With an intention to destroy the evidence, they threw the dead body in a valley in that area. CRL.P.No.100537/2018
C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018:6: Sri.Gaddekar, the Police Inspector, who heard the said revelation made by the accused Naveed Khazi, lodged a complaint in that regard with the complainant police. The said complaint was registered with the complainant police in their station Crime No.117/2017 against eight accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 364, 120B, 396, 201, 427, 506 R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25(A) of the Indian Arms Act 1959.
3. The learned counsels for the petitioners in their arguments, while reiterating the contention taken up by them in their respective petitions, submitted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on the alleged revelation said to have been made by the accused while he is said to have being interrogated in another crime. As such, it carries no reliability to believe and act upon it. The learned counsel further submitted that, there is a delay of two years in lodging the FIR and admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. It is only based on the conjunctions and surmises a false case has CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018:7: been registered against the present accused. The learned counsels also submitted that accused No.8 - Nazeer Nadaf has also been enlarged by this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent - State, apart from filing his statement of objection also vehemently opposed the petitions stating that all the accused are habitual accused involved in severed crimes and that with greatest difficulty the Investigating Officer could investigate that the missing Rohan Redekar was abducted by these accused and was killed in a brutal manner. Further, the investigating Officer also made recovery, more importantly the debit card of the deceased Rohan at the instance of accused No.1 - Naveed Khaji. As such, the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. Admittedly, as could be gathered at this stage, there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The alleged missing of deceased Rohan was on 19.02.2015, in CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018:8: which regard for about two years, the police could not get any clue about the whereabouts of the missing person. It is only when the present complainant is said to have conducting the investigation in Crime No.117/2017 of the APMC Police Station, it is said that, by the alleged revelation of the Rohan's kidnapping case, he came to know about the alleged murder of Rohan and the involvement of the other accused therein.
It is upon the alleged panchanama said to have been drawn by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation, the learned HCGP relies upon and contends that there was recovery made at the instance of the present petitioners, as such, they are not entitled for bail.
It is the very same panchanama which the learned counsel for the present petitioners in their argument also seriously disputed. The said panchanama is shown as panchanama of the thesis of conspiracy and abduction and murder as shown by the accused. The said CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018:9: panchanama is shown to have been drawn between 2.30 pm to 3.30 pm on 18.05.2017.
The said panchanama shows that the respondent - police during the investigation in this crime apprehended three accused including the present petitioners and that those three accused took them to different places and shown them those places, where they made conspiracy and those where they executed their plan of abducting Rohan, the place of murder of Rohan and also the place of throwing the dead body of the deceased Rohan. Even according to the said panchanama, though the police are said to have been taken to different places by the accused, but except in the house of accused No.8 - Nazeer Nadaf, at no other place any articles were seized at the instance of the accused. The alleged recovery of the debit card said to have been belonging to the deceased is shown to have been made in the house of accused No.8 - Nazeer Nadaf, which house was said to have been shown to the police in the presence of panchas, not by the present petitioners, CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018: 10 : but by the other accused by name Nazeer Nadaf (accused No.8). Even according to the said panchanama, it is the police, who during their search in the said house in a treasury said to have been kept in the said house, found debit card which was later identified as that of the deceased Rohan Redekar.
Therefore, the contention of the learned HCGP that a debit card was recovered at the instance of accused No.5 is not corroborated by the alleged panchanama dated 18.05.2017 towards which this Court's attention was drawn by the learned HCGP.
6. Even though the charge sheet accuses that it was the accused No.5 - Naveed Khazi, who restrained the deceased Rohan from proceeding further in his car and it was these two present petitioners (accused Nos. 3 and 5), who assisted accused No.6 and enabled him to stab deceased Rohan and to cause his death, still those allegations does not find any corroboration as could be noticed from the available material at this stage. Even CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018: 11 : according to the prosecution, the alleged involvement and alleged role of the present petitioners are only based upon the circumstantial evidence, which the Investigating Officer is said to have been collected during the investigation. As such, the reliability of those alleged circumstantial evidences has to be ascertained only in a full fledged trial.
7. Even though the offences alleged against the present petitioners are heinous in nature, but the above analysis go to show that the availability of materials before this Court at this stage creates some doubt about the involvement of the present petitioners/accused in the commission of the alleged crime to the extent as alleged by the prosecution. However, the finding towards the alleged involvement of the present petitioners can only be given after holding a full fledged trial. At the same time, it also cannot be ignored of the fact that, accused No.8 is said to have been enlarged by this Court on bail on 10.11.2017, in Criminal Petition No.102358/2017. As observed above, CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.
CRL.P.No.100806/2018: 12 : even though the debit card of the deceased Rohan was shown to have been recovered from the house of the said accused No.8, the relief of bail has been extended to him. Since at this stage the present role of accused Nos.3 and 5 cannot be taken as in excess of the alleged role of accused No.8 in the commission of the crime, I am of the view that, on the ground of parity, the present petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that the present petitioners hail from different places, as such, securing them for the trial would be a greatest difficulty can be checked by imposing conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER Criminal Petition Nos.100537/2018 and 100806/2018 are allowed.
The petitioners in both the cases/accused No.3 and 5 respectively, are enlarged on bail in C.C.No.652/2017 (Crime No.117/2017 of Malamaruti Police Station) for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 364, 120(B), 396, 201, 427, 506 CRL.P.No.100537/2018 C/w.CRL.P.No.100806/2018 : 13 :
R/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 25(A) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. However, subject to the following condition:
(i) Each of the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 5, shall execute personal bond for a sum of `50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two local solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court. No single person can extend his suretyship for more than one accused.
(ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 5 shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.
(iii) The petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 5 shall keep informed the Court in writing about changes in their address, if any, and obtain an acknowledgement in that regard in writing.
(iv) The petitioners/accused Nos.5 and 3 shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab