Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1173 (KAR)

Tabbarak Pasha v. State Of Karnataka

2019-06-10

S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Criminal Petition No.2311/2019 and Criminal Petition No.9395/2018 relate to the accused, who have been arraigned in crime No.582/2017 and accordingly, they have been taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The Criminal Petition No.2311/2019 has been filed by accused No.5, while Criminal Petition No.9395/2018 has been filed on behalf of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. 3. The petitioners have filed the petitions seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with their detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.582/2017 with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. 4. The case that is made out by the prosecution is that on 19.10.2017 at about 9.30 p.m. after finishing dinner, the complainant had gone to have tea, offered prayers at Madeena Masjid and came out at 9.30 p.m. At that time, the complainant is said to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased Syed Yusuf. Subsequently, the Sued Yusuf has succumbed to injuries and died. 5. It is to be noted that investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed and trial has also commenced. He has also stated that the complainant CW.1 and other prime witnesses i.e., CW.7, CW.9 and CW.17 have turned hostile. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that the complainant whose evidence taken as CW.1 has turned hostile and does not support the case of prosecution it its entirety. In fact, the prosecution has treated the said witness as hostile and so also the other witnesses i.e., CW-7 and CW-9 have been treated as hostile. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader states that trial is already in advance stage and allowing the petitioners to be enlarged on bail would jeopardize the further trial. 8. A perusal of the order dated 28.08.2018 in Crl.P 4785/2018 would show that the Court has applied its mind and observed that there is a discrepancy with respect to the actual time of accident. 9. Taking note of the observation made in the order dated 28.08.2018 and also noticing that common object is imputed as regards the accused, there is no reason as to why the other accused, who were the petitioners herein, ought to be treated differently. 10. 9. Taking note of the observation made in the order dated 28.08.2018 and also noticing that common object is imputed as regards the accused, there is no reason as to why the other accused, who were the petitioners herein, ought to be treated differently. 10. Taking note of the fact that investigation is complete, evidence of the complainant and other prime witnesses is almost complete and that CW.1, CW.7, and CW.9 have turned hostile, and that accused no.1 has been released on bail in Crl.P 4785/2018, that petitioners are in custody since 23.10.2017, it would be a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 11. Accordingly, petitions filed by the petitioners /accused nos.3, 4 and 5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners /accused nos.3, 4 and 5 are ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.582/2017 registered by the respondent-police subject to the petitioners executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each and furnishing two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (ii) The petitioners/accused nos.3, 4 and 5 shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. (iii) The petitioners/accused nos.3, 4 and 5 shall not directly or indirectly threaten the witnesses. (iv) The petitioners/accused nos.3, 4 and 5 shall regularly appear before the Court for trial, without fail. (v) The petitioners/accused nos.3, 4 and 5 shall not get involved in any criminal case/s. In case, if any, complaint is registered against them, the bail granted in this case stands cancelled automatically.