Karnataka High Court
Muzameel vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRL.P.No.7891 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
MUZAMEEL, S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT 2531, 17TH CROSS,
AREKATTE STREET, LASHKAR MOHALLA,
MYSORE 570 001.
..PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.S.N.KARANTH, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE,
NOW BY CCB (SPECIAL ENQUIRY),
BANGALORE-560 026, REP.BY:
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY MR. G.M.SRINIVASA REDDY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR. NO.118/2011 OF HUNSUR
TOWN P.S., MYSORE AND S.C.NO.1027/2012 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE P.O., F.T.C.-13, BANGALORE FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 364(A) OF IPC, ETC.,
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.9 in S.C. No.1027/2012 pending before the FTC-13, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 364(A), 302, 201, 212 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC.
2. The petitioner, on coming to know of the fact that he has been arraigned as accused in the case, voluntarily surrendered before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 31.03.2012, before whom by then the Investigation Officer had already filed charge sheet showing him as absconding. On surrender, for a brief period, he was remanded to police custody and thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody. Since then he has been in judicial custody. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer filed additional charge sheet in respect of this petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, he is before this Court.
3
3. Petition is opposed by the respondent - State.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the records made available
5. The case of the prosecution is that Vignesh and Sudhindra, residents of Hunsur Town and students studying in Mahajan College, Mysore left their houses for the last time on 8.6.2011 stating that they are going to the college for writing their examination, however, they did not return home till evening. By then, the family members of Sudhindra had received telephone call on their mobile from the mobile of Sudhindra stating that the boys are in their custody and they demanded a ransom of Rs.5.00 crore for their safe release. Immediately, Ashok Kumar, uncle of Sudhindra lodged a report before the jurisdictional police, narrating those facts. Based on the said report, case in Crime No.118/2011 for offence under Section 364-A IPC came 4 to be registered against unknown persons for abduction of the two boys for ransom.
6. On 12.6.2011, the dead bodies of two boys were found lying on the by-pass road near Chickaballapur. The dead bodies were identified as that of those two boys. On 13.6.2011, as per the directions of the DGP, the investigation was handed over to CCB, Bangalore and the Assistant Commissioner of Police was directed to head the investigation. During investigation, five persons who were found moving suspiciously in Jnanabharathi Campus area in a car were apprehended on 26.2.2011. During interrogation, they are said to have confessed the crime. They also have said to disclose the complicity of other accused persons. On the basis of such confession, apart from arraigning those five persons as accused 2 to 6 in the case, the other persons named by them were also arraigned as accused. This petitioner was arraigned as accused No.8. On the basis of such voluntary statement said to have been made by accused Nos.2 to 6.
5
7. During further investigation certain incriminating materials namely, the gold ornaments belonging to the two deceased persons were recovered at the instance of accused Nos.2 to 6 from the possession of pawn broker, Tulasiram - CW.56. The investigation revealed that the two deceased persons had been abducted from near the college on 8.6.2011 to demand for ransom from their parents and later, they were murdered by robbing their valuables. During further investigation, some more accused persons were apprehended and after completing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed as stated supra against 18 persons.
8. Perusal of the voluminous records submitted along with charge sheet would indicate that the prosecution in order to prima facie, connect this petitioner to the crime relies heavily on the statement said to have been made by the co-accused about the complicity of this petitioner in the crime alleged. Even according to the prosecution, after the arrest of this 6 petitioner, except seizing a mobile hand set belonging to him, no other incriminating material has been recovered either from his possession or at his instance.
9. This petitioner surrendered before Court on 31.03.2012 and he was taken to police custody and later remanded to judicial custody. Till today no steps has been taken to conduct Test Identification Parade. According to the prosecution, CWs.83 and 84 are the eye witnesses to the incident of abduction from near the college. According to the statements of CWs.83 and 84, both the assailants and victims were strangers to them. The materials produced along with the charge sheet would indicate that after the arrest of accused 2 to 6, Test Identification Parade was conducted wherein CWs.83 and 84 identified accused 4 and 7 as two assailants. Test Identification Parade was stated to have been conducted much prior to the surrender of this petitioner. In spite of the same, it is alleged in the charge sheet that accused 2 to 4 and 7 to 9 have been identified by witnesses namely, CWs.81, 83 and 84 in 7 the Test Identification Parade conducted by Taluka Executive Magistrate CW-120.
10. It is not forthcoming as to on what basis, such an allegation about the identification of this petitioner in the so called test identification parade has been stated in the charge sheet. Be that as it may, at this stage, I find no prima facie incriminating materials to connect this petitioner to the crime alleged. On the sole basis of the so called statement of the co-accused, this Court cannot come to a prima facie conclusion that this petitioner was also involved in the crime alleged. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that this petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
11. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.1027/12, pending before FTC-13, Bangalore City, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2.00 8 lakhs with two local sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that,
i) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case;
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.
The observations made herein are all for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and the learned Sessions Judge shall not in any way be influenced by any of these observations while disposing of the case on merits.
SD/-
JUDGE VK