Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 983 (KAR)

Arbaz @ Abbas v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-29

M.NAGAPRASANNA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking his enlargement on bail in respect of Crime No.179/2021 (C.C.No.8921/2021) of Udayagiri Police Station, Mysuru, now pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Mysuru for offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 354(b), 307, 302 r/w 149 of the IPC, for it having been turned down by the learned Sessions Judge. 2. Heard Sri Lethif B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. Brief facts of the case that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition is that: One Ibrahim who was in the business of welding work alleged that on 14.08.2021 he had lost his mobile and when the complainant was searching for the mobile phone he comes to know that the phone was with one Imran residing at Kalyanagiri. It is further alleged that when the complainant went near the house of Imran asking for the mobile phone, Imran allegedly told that he will himself come near the complainant's house and talk. By this time the complainant called his brother Abdul Rahim and informed that his mobile was with Imran and that he is coming near their house. Subsequently, the brother of the complainant and his friend one Yasin came near the house of the complainant at about 7.30 pm. Accused Nos.1 to 4 also come near the house of the complainant. Accused Nos.1 to 4 and others took up a quarrel with the complainant and the allegation is, with an intention to commit the murder of complainant and his brother. Accused assaulted the complainant's brother with a knife on his stomach, chest and left hand and also assaulted Yasin with a knife on his stomach. One Shaheen Taj who tried to pacify the quarrel was also pushed to the side. On this ground, a complaint came to be registered for offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The injured Mohammed Yasin succumbed to the injuries on 16.08.2021 and accordingly, Section 302 of the IPC was invoked. 4. The police, after investigation have filed a charge sheet in the matter. As per the allegations in the charge sheet accused No.4, the present petitioner Accused No.1 and accused No.6 are alleged of the very same offence or the facts leading to the offence. 4. The police, after investigation have filed a charge sheet in the matter. As per the allegations in the charge sheet accused No.4, the present petitioner Accused No.1 and accused No.6 are alleged of the very same offence or the facts leading to the offence. As per the statement of the eyewitness C.W.2 who deposed with regard to the role of accused No.1, the petitioner had nothing to do with the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. In terms of the charge sheet though the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1, the allegation of assault on the deceased is by accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, in which 4, 6 and 7 assaulted the deceased with their hands, accused No.5 is said to have caused the injury by knife and accused No.3 is said to have stabbed the abdomen of the deceased which resulted in the death. Accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 against whom all the allegations are there are already enlarged on bail. It is on the ground of parity that the petitioner seeks his enlargement on bail and the injuries caused by the act of the petitioner in terms of the wound certificate are essentially simple in nature. 5. Since accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 who are also on the same footing as that of the petitioner are already enlarged on bail, I deem it appropriate to notice column No.17 of the charge sheet to consider whether the petitioner is on par with the other accused who have already been enlarged on bail. Column No.17 reads as follows: What is alleged against the petitioner is that he had screamed not to leave Mohammed Yasin, the deceased and asked the deceased to be hit and accordingly, the act was performed by accused Nos.4, 6 and 7 as per column No.17 of the charge sheet. They have been enlarged on bail. 6. In the light of the charge sheet being filed in the matter, though the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with more than ten years of imprisonment, since persons who are alleged of offences punishable with life imprisonment are already enlarged on bail, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The petitioner-accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.179/2021 (C.C.No.8921/2021) of Udayagiri Police Station, Mysuru, pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Mysuru, for the aforesaid offences, subject to the following conditions: (iii) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court; (iv) The petitioner shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court; (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission. (v) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled. The observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the subject petition for grant of bail or otherwise and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order.