Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1175 (KAR)

Mohammed Irfan @ Irfan v. State Of Karnataka

2019-06-10

S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner who is accused No.6 is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.307/2016 with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B), 114, 143, 144, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of IPC. 2. The case of prosecution is that complaint was filed by Syed Ansar alleging that he was doing cloth business along with his brothers and father. He further states that two years prior to the incident, his brothers had a quarrel with one Samsheer (Accused No.1) regarding doing business on the footpath and the matter was said to have been amicably settled. The complainant has stated that on 13.11.2016, at about 8.40 p.m. his relative had informed him that Samsheer (accused No.1) and others had assaulted the deceased Syed Aslam with lethal weapons and he succumbed to injuries and died. The compliant came to be lodged, FIR has been registered and investigation has been completed with the filing of charge sheet. 3. It is stated that charges are yet to be framed. It is also noticed that the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2016 and that accused No.7 in Criminal Petition No.1365/2017, accused No.9 in Criminal Petition No.10033/2017 and accused No.10 in Criminal Petition No.4440/2017 have been enlarged on bail by the order of this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the name of accused No.6 has not been mentioned in the complaint and the petitioner is sought to be implicated on the basis of the statement of accused No.1, who himself is one of the main accused in the present matter and hence reliance ought not to be placed on such statement. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that statement of accused No.1 before the Police Authority is inadmissible in evidence. Hence, filing of the charge sheet only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1 cannot be accepted and is a matter for trial. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that since investigation is complete and that the other accused i.e., accused Nos.7, 9 and 10 have been released on bail his request for having been enlarged on bail also to be considered. 6. Taking note of the fact that implication of accused No.6 is only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1. 6. Taking note of the fact that implication of accused No.6 is only on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1. At this stage, the evidentiary value of the voluntary statement of accused No.1 is a matter that requires to be dealt at the time of trial and on being corroborated by necessary evidence, as the voluntary statement is prima-facie inadmissible. It is also noticed that petitioners name has not been mentioned in the compliant nor referred to in the statement of CW.2 and also there is no material at this stage that would indicate the test identification parade has been carried out so as to identify the persons including accused No.6. 7. It is to be noted that learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge has rejected the application of petitioner in Sessions Case No.503/2017 dated 09.06.2017 observing the gravity of the offence and that there was a chance of the accused committing similar offences, absconding and not participating with the trial. 8. It is also to be noticed that no material has been produced to substantiate the contention that the petitioner had criminal antecedents. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents, however, the apprehension regarding absconding and committing similar offence is a matter that could be taken care of by imposing strict conditions. 9. Accordingly, petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a self-bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The sureties shall produce their Aadhar Card/Identity Card and the original title deed pertaining to their immovable property for perusal of the Court. The sureties shall not have the history of offering surety to the accused persons of any other criminal case. (ii) The petitioner shall attend the Court on all hearing dates regularly and punctually. (iii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the respondent-police on every Tuesday during office hours till the conclusion of trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. (v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. In the event there is violation of any conditions, the order of bail shall stands automatically cancelled.