Karnataka High Court
Sharookh @ Shaikh Mastan vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 July, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200713/2022
BETWEEN:
SHAROOKH @ SHAIKH MASTAN
S/O SHAIK MASHAKSAB,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI WORK,
R/O NOORANI MOHALLA, KALABURAGI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
ROZA POLICE STATION,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIIONAL SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: SHIVKUMAR TENGLI, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.24/2016
OF ROZA POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B), R/W 149 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN
S.C.NO.175/2019.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.3 (as per charge sheet) is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.24/2016 of Roza Police Station, pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in S.C.No.175/2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Afsar Baig.
2. Heard Sri. Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Shivkumar Tengli, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3, as per charge sheet. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Initially, he was enlarged on bail vide order dated 31.08.2016 passed in Crl.Misc.No.961/2016. 3 He attended the Court till 2019 in S.C.No.155/2016. Thereafter, he could not appear before the Court. Accused No.1 was tried in S.C.No.155/2016 and he is acquitted, vide judgment dated 14.05.2020 on the file of learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. In the meantime, split-up charge sheet was filed and case against accused No.3 is registered in S.C.No.175/2019. The petitioner was apprehended by executing the non-bailable warrant on 15.11.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The case against accused No.4 is already abated. While acquitting accused No.1, the trial Court specifically held that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of accused No.1 as alleged. Under such circumstances, there are no prima-facie materials to connect the present petitioner to the offence in question. His detention 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 would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 4
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner-accused No.3 for having committed the offence, which is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Even though, petitioner was enlarged on bail initially during the year 2016, he remained absconding. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from seeking release on bail. Since S.C.No.175/2019 is pending for trial, the enlargement of the petitioner on bail may further delay the trial. 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:
"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:
5
REASONS
6. Serious allegations are made against the present petitioner and other accused for having committed the offence, which is punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The trial of accused No.1 is concluded in S.C.No.155/2016 and he is acquitted as the trial Court formed an opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the meantime, the petitioner remained absconding and split-up charge sheet was filed which is registered in S.C.No.175/2019, pending for trial. In the meantime, the petitioner was apprehended by executing non-bailable warrant on 15.11.2021. The conduct of the petitioner in absconding before the trial Court cannot be justified in any manner. However, the main accused is accused No.1, who is already acquitted by the trial Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned AGA that the petitioner may abscond or may 6 tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses and further reasonable conditions may be imposed to secure the presence of the petitioner before the trial Court, which will enable the Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.24/2016 of Roza Police Station, 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.7
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 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