Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 419 (KAR)

Syed Mohammed v. State of Karnataka

2012-05-04

ANAND BYRAREDDY

body2012
ORDER ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No. 6 in Crime No. 18/2011, the facts of which are as follows: According to the complainant, on 1.2.2011, his nephew one Pankaj Jain, while moving on his two wheeler, was accosted by unknown persons in an Indica Car, which was brought by accused No. 3 Sadruddin, (who has been identified in retrospect). The accused had tied him up and sealed his mouth with tape and using his mobile phone, had called his family and demanded a ransom of Rs. 8,20,000/- to release him. Thereafter, on 2.2.2011, at about 8.30p.m., the accused is said to have received a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- from the complainant, but they failed to release the victim and in order to cover-up all evidence, the victim was put to death by drowning in a canal and the gold jewellery on his body was taken by the accused. It is on the basis of that complaint, on investigation, accused Nos. 6 and 7 were apprehended and on their statements, the other accused were arrested and the investigating officer, after completing the investigation, had filed a charge-sheet for offences under the various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and the matter has been committed to the Sessions Court in a case in S.C. 127/2011. The petitioner having approached the Court below for bail, the same has been rejected. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that there is no incriminating material against the petitioner. Though a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- has been recovered from the several accused, only a mobile phone has been recovered from the petitioner and there is no nexus with the offence established as against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, his bail application has been rejected on the ground that his voice has been recorded and has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for a report and since the report is awaited, the petitioner has been denied bail. 4. Notwithstanding the same, his bail application has been rejected on the ground that his voice has been recorded and has been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for a report and since the report is awaited, the petitioner has been denied bail. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that his voice, in fact, has not been recorded and, therefore, the question of submitting the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for a report does not arise and rejection of bail on that ground, therefore, results in grave injustice to the petitioner, as he is in no way involved in the incident and the implication of the petitioner is merely on the say of others. 5. While the learned Government Pleader would insist that the petitioner having approached this Court earlier, on the very grounds, the petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner may renew his bail application before the trial Court after receipt of the Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and, therefore, the petition ought to be rejected at the threshold. 6. While the learned Counsel for the petitioner would reiterate that the absence of any such recording of the voice is apparent from the statements of CWs.54 and 69, which was brought to the attention of the Court below. However, the trial Court has ignored the same and has insisted that till such time the report is received, the petitioner’s application for bail cannot be considered. It is this circumstance which has warranted the petitioner to approach this Court over again. 7. Given the above facts and circumstances, if indeed, the petitioner’s voice has not been recorded, as sought to be contended by the petitioner, based on the statements said to have been made by CWs. 54 and 69, it would be appropriate if the petitioner’s application for bail is considered if there is no such report that is to be awaited insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. In the event that the Court below finds that there is indeed a recording of the voice of the petitioner and that a Report from the Forensic Science Laboratory is awaited, the petitioner’s application for bail can be kept in abeyance till such time the Report is received and can be considered at the appropriate time. In the event that the Court below finds that there is indeed a recording of the voice of the petitioner and that a Report from the Forensic Science Laboratory is awaited, the petitioner’s application for bail can be kept in abeyance till such time the Report is received and can be considered at the appropriate time. Therefore, the Court below is directed to re-examine the contention of the petitioner that the statements of CWs.54 and 69 would reveal that the voice of the petitioner has not been recorded and the question of awaiting any report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not arise and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 8. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.