Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 244 (KAR)

Ahamadh Kabeer v. State of Karnataka

2023-02-09

M G UMA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER M G Uma, J. - The petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.43 of 2022 of Yagati Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kadur, Chikkamagaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri.Y S Shashikumar. 2. Heard Sri B S Sachin, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H S Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners is arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 5. They are innocent and have not committed any offences as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. They were apprehended on 21.07.2022 and since then they are in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Accused Nos.1, 2, 4, and 6 against whom similar allegations are made are already enlarged on bail as per the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, on the ground of parity, these petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. After due investigation, charge sheet came to be filed which makes out a strong prima facie case against the petitioners. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. After due investigation, charge sheet came to be filed which makes out a strong prima facie case against the petitioners. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: 'Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?' My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. The allegations made against the petitioners are of serious nature. After investigation, charge sheet is filed which makes out a prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Admittedly, the petitioners were apprehended on 21.07.2022 and since then they are judicial custody. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioners are required to be detained in custody for any purpose, except to ensure their presence before the Trial Court. It is stated that accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 against whom similar allegations are made are already on bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that the present petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioners in custody would amount to infringement of their right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.43 of 2022 of Yagati Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kadur, Chikkamagaluru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences. b). The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The petitioners shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the petitioners violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioners and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioners on bail.