Karnataka High Court
Imam Patel S/O Bashyasab vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200960/2017
BETWEEN:
Imam Patel S/o Bashyasab
Kondaguli @ Kanameshwar,
Age : 34 Years, Occ : Tailoring,
R/o Muradi in Tq: Sindagi,
Dist. : Vijayapur-586101.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
R/by Addl. S.P.P.
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench.
(Through Sindagi P.S.,
Dist: Vijayapur)
... Respondent
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, GRANT
THE REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN
CRIME NO.73/2016 (C.C.NO.271/2016) OF
SINDAGI P.S., WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143,
147, 148, 302, 504, 506( 2) R/W 149 OF IPC.
PENDING BEFORE J.M.F.C. COURT (SR.DN.)
SINDAGI.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - Police.
2. The petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.73/2016 of Sindagi Police Station registered 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 504, 506(2) R/W 149 of IPC.
3. The complaint is lodged by one Kashiray S/o Revansiddappa Jevargi. It is seen that there is dispute between the complainant's brother and accused regarding purchase of land of one Kashimsab. In that background on 18.02.2016 at 8-30 a.m., complainant Kashiray and his younger brother Muttappa were going on the motorcycle bearing No.KA-28/EG-1278 to Vijayapur to attend the Court hearing, the complainant stopped the vehicle to attend nature call and vehicle was parked on the road, but his brother Muttappa was sitting on the motorcycle. Meanwhile, the accused persons came in a Bolero jeep and by seeing the accused persons, Muttappa went on the motorcycle and 4 accused chased him in the jeep and witnesses Shivalingappa, Shivasharanappa, Mukkanna and Suryakanth came on other motorcycle and complainant along with the said witnesses also followed them and accused stopped the motorcycle of Muttappa and made him to fall on the ground and all the accused having armed with lethal weapons like sword axe and sticks assaulted Muttappa and caused grievous injuries on the vital parts and committed the murder of Muttappa and ran away from the spot. Based on the said complaint, case was registered and through investigation it was revealed that accused No.9 also committed the offence. It is appears that the accused No.9 was granted bail by this Court. 5
4. Learned counsel would submit that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 12.03.2016 but trial has not yet started. In the context and circumstances of the case, it may not be just and proper to retain the case in respect of which the certain accused persons shown absconding. The job of the Magistrate would have been considered the accused persons, their numbers, and their ranks, committed the records along with the documents to the Jurisdictional Court. On the other hand, the learned Judge without mentioning the reason has allowed accused No.9 on bail and petitioner to be extended in spite of committing the case in respect of present accused and splitting in respect of remaining number.
6
5. At this stage, considering the absconding of the accused and non-committal of the case by the JMFC Judge, it is not just and proper to grant relief of bail in this case. However, it is also not just for the learned committal Judge to allow the case trial without being committed in case the persons are necessary in case some of the accused are not presence before the Court or not appearing, the learned Judge could have chosen the next provision of law regarding the splitting charge sheet or otherwise.
6. In the result, the application is devoid of merits at present.
Hence, the 7 ORDER Bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is rejected.
The petitioner is given liberty to file application if he chose to do so after hearing before the charge.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP