Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 458 (KAR)

Mohammadsab v. State of Karnataka

2015-04-22

G.NARENDRA

body2015
ORDER G. Narendra, J. 1. The petitioners before this Court are accused 4 and 10. The allegation against the said petitioners are that they had taken the deceased by enticing him with a proposal of partying and that they had taken him in a car and subsequently he was assaulted and murdered. The accused 6, 7 and 8 are alleged to have inflicted the injuries, which resulted in the death. The accused 1 is the person who is supposed to have paid the money through accused 2 to the accused 3 to 10 for murdering the deceased as accused 1 suspected that the deceased was having an illegal affair with his daughter-in-law. 2. It is the case of police that the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA 26/M 1825 was found abandoned in Kittur Village and the police in the course of tracing the owner of the car interrogated C.W. 17, who would disclose that the car was taken by the deceased and accused 4 and 10 under the pretext of going out for a party. Thereafter accused 4 and 10 were arrested on 2-9-2014 and upon their voluntary statement the other accused persons were arrested on 3-9-2014. 3. In this background and facts, it is submitted that accused 1, 2, 7 and 9 have been enlarged on bail by this Court in Cri. P. No. 100205 of 2015 and Cri. P. No. 100221 of 2015. The reading of the order would show that this Court has only partly allowed the petitions. In that it was pleased to enlarge the accused 1, 2 and 9 on bail against whom no overt acts have been alleged. Subsequently, by order dated 9-3-2015 the Court was further pleased to enlarge the accused 6, 8 and 5 respectively on bail, who are petitioners in Cri. P. No. 100369 of 2015 connected with Cri. P. No. 100391 of 2015. Thereafter, by order dated 26-3-2015 this Court was further pleased to enlarge the accused 7 on bail in Cri. P. No. 100479 of 2015. 4. The petitioner would point out that accused 6, who is alleged to have committed the overt act of stabbing the deceased and accused 8, who is alleged to have committed the overt act of assaulting the deceased with talwar to ensure his death have been enlarged on bail by this Court. P. No. 100479 of 2015. 4. The petitioner would point out that accused 6, who is alleged to have committed the overt act of stabbing the deceased and accused 8, who is alleged to have committed the overt act of assaulting the deceased with talwar to ensure his death have been enlarged on bail by this Court. He points out that the present petitioner does not stand on a similar footing as that of accused 6 i.e., overt act attributed to accused 7 is of stabbing the deceased as is alleged against accused 6. This Court while allowing Cri. P. No. 100369 of 2015 was been pleased to note that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the accused are no more required for custodial interrogation and it may take considerable amount of time for the trial to reach its logical conclusion. The Court also was aided in arriving at the conclusion by the fact that accused 6 and 8 were arrested on the voluntary statement of the other accused persons. Hence, on parity the petitioner prays that the above petition may also be allowed. 5. The High Court Government Pleader would admit that the orders dated 23-2-2015, 9-3-2015 and 26-3-2015 have not been appealed against by the respondent-police. He would point out that the deceased was murdered in view of his illicit relationship with the daughter-in-law of the accused 1. He further submits that the petitioner and others are contract killers, who have been merciless and the ghastly act has been committed by the hired killers and they are a bane to the society. He would further submit that if the petitioners are released they would continue with his activities and they would be like a thorn in the flesh, to the society. He would point out that the investigation having been completed and charge-sheet filed, the trial is likely to commence shortly. If in these circumstances the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they would intimate the witnesses or remove themselves from the jurisdiction of this Court in order to avoid the trial by the jurisdictional Court. 6. I have considered the submissions of the respective Counsel and it is undisputed that the act as described is a ghastly and dastardly act and requires to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. 6. I have considered the submissions of the respective Counsel and it is undisputed that the act as described is a ghastly and dastardly act and requires to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. It is seen that the petitioner has not been attributed with any overt act as is the case with accused 6 and 8. But by order dated 9-3-2015 this Court was pleased to enlarge on bail accused 5, 6 and 8, who have been accused of inflicting the fatal blows with their weapons and it is based on this order that the petitioner's Counsel would pray that the case of the petitioner also be considered in similar terms as those of petitioners in Cri. P. No. 100369 of 2015 connected with Cri. P. No. 100391 of 2015. It is also the case that on the ground of parity also the present petitioner is entitled to similar relief as granted in favour of petitioners in Cri. P. No. 100369 of 2015. 7. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the FSL report is still awaited, but cash amounts have been recovered from the accused. The contention of the petitioners that they be treated on parity as has been done in the case of petitioners in Cri. P. No. 100369 of 2015 requires to be considered. The prosecution themselves have found it fit not to appeal against the reasoning of this Court that the accused could be enlarged on bail as it would require some more time for the trial to reach its logical conclusion. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioners. The above petition is allowed. The petitioners are enlarged on bail, subject to.-- (i) Petitioners executing a self-bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each and also furnishing two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court. (ii) The Court below is directed to ascertain the identity and address of the sureties through the Investigating Officer of the case. (iii) The petitioners shall report before the respondent-Police on every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday until further orders from this Court. (iv) The petitioners shall attend the Court hearing on every date and in the event of failure to do so, the respondent-police is entitled to move this Hon'ble Court for recalling of this order/cancellation of the bail. (iii) The petitioners shall report before the respondent-Police on every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday until further orders from this Court. (iv) The petitioners shall attend the Court hearing on every date and in the event of failure to do so, the respondent-police is entitled to move this Hon'ble Court for recalling of this order/cancellation of the bail. (v) The petitioners shall not threaten or approach the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without the prior permission of the Trial Court. The above criminal petition is ordered accordingly and is disposed off in the above terms.