Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 947 (KAR)

Tippu Khan v. State By Bytrayanpura Police

2014-10-30

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2014
Judgment : 1. Criminal Petition Nos.6120/2014, 5925/2014, 6302/2014, 6303/2014, 6304/2014 and 6122/2014 have been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.1 to 6 and Criminal Petition No.6080/2014 is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by accused No.8 in respect of a case registered in Cr.No.40/2014 by Byatarayanapura Police Station, Bangalore. Offences are punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 302 and 120-B 02 r/w 149 of IPC. 2. Similar bail applications filed by the petitioners/accused before the Trial Court have been dismissed. Hence, they have filed the present petitions. 3. Learned HCGP has vehemently opposed the bail applications contending that participation of all these accused in murdering Imtiyaz @ Karchip on the intervening night of 24th and 25th of January 2014 in front of House No.4, 8th Main, Shamanna Garden, Mysore Road, Bangalore is made out and incriminating materials like deadly weapons have been recovered at the instance of these accused. It is further argued that these petitioners are rowdy elements in the locality and if they are let on bail, they are likely to commit similar offences and cause threats to life in the society. Therefore, he has requested the Court to dismiss all these petitions. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the records. 5. As could be seen from the records, deceased Imtiyaz @ Karchip was an agent under Gadda Saddiq, CW-16. The said Gadda Saddiq is a money lender and deceased was assisting him in collecting amount from persons to whom Gadda Saddiq was advancing loan. CWs-17, 18 and 19 are the persons who had availed loan from Gadda Saddiq. CW-17 had availed loan of Rs.2,500,000/- from Gadda Saddiq and was liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-. CW-18 had also availed loan to an extent of Rs.75,000/- and had repaid a sum of Rs.50,000/- and CW-19 had also received a sum of Rs.50,000/- and had returned Rs.25,000/-to Gadda Saddiq. The statement of these witnesses discloses that the said deceased Imtiyaz used to often threaten them to repay the amount lest he would create trouble to them. 6. The first informant Sardar Khan is the elder brother of the deceased. On the basis of the first information, the case has been registered against these petitioners. 7. The gist of the prosecution is that accused are friends and deceased was often threatening them by brandishing knife and collecting amount. 6. The first informant Sardar Khan is the elder brother of the deceased. On the basis of the first information, the case has been registered against these petitioners. 7. The gist of the prosecution is that accused are friends and deceased was often threatening them by brandishing knife and collecting amount. It is also forthcoming from the statement of CW-16 that Gadda Saddiq had engaged the services of the deceased to collect the amount from various persons who had availed loan from him. Since, Imtiyaz was causing trouble to the persons who had availed loan, all these persons had approached Chief of the local mosque, who is examined as CW-20. CW-20 is stated to have advised Imtiyaz not to trouble to the people. Inspite of the said advice, he did not mend himself and continued his earlier act. Being enraged by the act of Imtiyaz, all the persons who had availed loan formed into an unlawful assembly and on the night of 24.1.2014 followed Imtiyaz and assaulted him with various deadly weapons like knife, dagger and chopper and murdered him in front of House No.4 8th Main Shamana Garden, Mysore Road, Bangalore and on 25.1.2014 early morning 3.00 a.m.. Hence, a case came to be registered on the basis of the first information lodged by the brother of the deceased. 8. First information lodged by Sardar Khan, elder brother of deceased discloses that he was unaware of the persons who committed murder and motive of murdering Imtiyaz. He has also not mentioned about probable weapons used to murder his brother. Based on the same, a case has been registered and investigation was taken up by the I.O. attached to Byatarayanapura Police Station. What is argued before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is inordinate delay in recording the statement of witnesses who had allegedly witnessed the incident in question. Admittedly, the first information was registered on the early morning of 25.1.2014 and statement of alleged eye witnesses were recorded on 27.1.2014, 29.1.14 and 13.3.2014. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if these persons had really witnessed the incident in question, nothing would have come in their way to intimate the police or the brother of the deceased at the early point of time. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if these persons had really witnessed the incident in question, nothing would have come in their way to intimate the police or the brother of the deceased at the early point of time. It is also argued that nothing is forthcoming in the statement of these witnesses that there was threatening by these accused and that they were afraid of intimating the police. There appears to be strong force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Admittedly, the entire investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is not the case of the respondent prosecution that the petitioners have not cooperated with the investigation in conducting investigation. Nothing is placed on record that there are no criminal case against these petitioners. 10. Admittedly, petitioners are residents of Bangalore and having roots in the community. The petitioners have undertaken to obey any conditions imposed on them. The apprehension of the learned Government Pleader would be suitably met with by imposing certain conditions. 11. In this view of the matter, petitions are allowed and bail is granted to the petitioners, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos. 6120/2014, 5925/2014, 6302/2014, 6303/2014, 6304/2014 and 6122/2014 shall be released on bail on them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety, for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge/JMFC. (ii) Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6080/2014 shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.40/2012 by Byatarayanapura Police, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the I.O and he shall cooperate with the I.O. for conducting investigation. (iii) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper any of the prosecution witnesses. (iv) Petitioners shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner. (v) Petitioners shall not involve themselves in any criminal activities. (vi) Petitioners shall attend the Sessions Court regularly on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the learned Sessions Judge to hold the trial. (vii) Petitioners shall mark attendance at the Jurisdictional Police Station on every Sunday between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. for a period of six months from the date of their release without fail. (vi) Petitioners shall attend the Sessions Court regularly on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate with the learned Sessions Judge to hold the trial. (vii) Petitioners shall mark attendance at the Jurisdictional Police Station on every Sunday between 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. for a period of six months from the date of their release without fail. (viii) If the petitioners violate any one of the conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.