Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 966 (KAR)

Noorualla Sharif v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-04

ASHOK S.KINAGI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 04.12.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.9740/2019 by the LIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, has filed this criminal petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Mr. Shaik Ghouse has lodged a complaint on 24.07.2018 alleging that he was staying with this mother, brother and sisters. His father was an Auto Driver and his mother had divorced his father as he used to consume alcohol and fight with her. Thereby, they were staying separately but in due course his father used to visit his house along with Chandru, Noorulla Sharif, Babu and others and was insisting complainants mother to rejoin with him but they used to deny. As such, when he was coming from Gym, he saw his father at 7.30 p.m., in Suddaguntepalya near Lakshmi Theatre standing with his friends and on 24.07.2018 he got information that somebody has committed murder of his father and his body is lying in the footpath of Dairy Compound. Thereby he suspected doubt over Chandru, Noorulla Sharif, Babu and others and subsequently, he visited Suddaguntepalya police station and lodged complaint. Based on the complaint, the respondent-Police registered the case in Crime No.215/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The petitioner has filed bail petition before the trial Court and the trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 04.12.2019. Hence, the petitioner filed this criminal petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation of the complainant is only with an assumption and further submits that the petitioner was arrested on 27.07.2018 and he is in judicial custody. He further submitted that charge sheet has already been filed, the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the criminal case. Hence, he requested this Court to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has filed a successive bail petition, which came to be dismissed and thereafter Crl.P.No.1409/2019 was filed by the petitioner, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2019. Hence, he requested this Court to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has filed a successive bail petition, which came to be dismissed and thereafter Crl.P.No.1409/2019 was filed by the petitioner, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2019. He further submits that if the petitioner is released on bail, there is chance of tampering and hampering of witnesses and chance of avoiding the trial. Hence, on this ground, he prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Perused the records. It is seen that the charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. In the charge sheet, the police has recorded the statement of witnesses and the statement of Dilip was recorded by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and further the Investigation Officer has collected the materials and also recorded the C.C.TV footages of the Bar. In the footage, the presence of the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the deceased in the Bar is visible. The materials collected by the Investigating Officer shows that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and involvement in murdering Shaik Vali on 23.07.2018. There are strong materials against the accused No.2/petitioner in committing murder of Shaik Vali. Further it is evident that earlier the petitioner had filed a bail application which was rejected by the trial Court and the same was challenged by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1409/2019 before this Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.08.2019. Therefore, I am of the opinion that even after filing charge sheet and disposal of earlier petition, the petitioner has not made out any strong changed circumstances for grant of bail. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed on merits. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed. 8. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 seeking for grant of Interim bail on the ground that the petitioner hails from a respectable family and is the sole earning member of the family and his children are studying in the school and is entirely dependent on the petitioner and further there is no one to look after the aged mother and the education of his children. Hence on this ground the petitioner has sought for interim bail on humanitarian grounds for a period of three months. Hence on this ground the petitioner has sought for interim bail on humanitarian grounds for a period of three months. In support of his application the mother of the petitioner has filed an affidavit reiterating the contents of the application filed by the petitioner and also enclose the Aadhar cards of his children. Hence, prayed to allow I.A.No.1 of 2020. 9. Considering the request of the petitioner, under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that this court considering the reasons mentioned in I.A.No.1 of 2020 and also the affidavit filed by the mother of the petitioner in support of I.A. No.1 of 2020 and also the documents, he is entitled for bail for a period of 2 months from the date of his release with a rider that no further extension will be given and thereafter, the accused/petitioner shall surrender himself before this court. 10. With this observation, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C by the petitioner is hereby rejected on merits. However, I.A.No.1 of 2020 is allowed subject to following conditions: i. The petitioner shall be released on bail only for a period of 60 days from the date of his release from jail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii. The petitioner shall not hold threats to the prosecution witnesses in any manner; iii. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal activities; iv. The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Court immediately on or before completion of 60 days as his bail order is only valid for a period of 60 days from the date of his release.