Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 289 (KAR)

Mohammed Showkath Pasha v. State of Karnataka

2024-04-25

RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

body2024
ORDER Rajendra Badamikar, J. These petitions are filed by Accused Nos.4, 5 & 6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for enlarging them on regular bail in Crime No.33/2024 of Tilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 341, 427, 332, 353, 307, 387, 114 read with 149 of IPC, pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Tumakuru District. 2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.3377/2024 are arraigned as Accused Nos. 4 & 5 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3423/2024 is arraigned as Accused No.6. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the Respondent-State. Perused the records. 4. The allegation of the prosecution discloses that, the complainant is a police constable of Rayapuram Police Station, Old Washermenpet District. It is alleged that Accused No.2 is an accused in SC No.319/2023 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai City pertaining to the offences under Sections 341, 294-B, 336, 427, 392 r/w. 397 and 506(ii) of IPC. A Non-bailable Warrant was issued by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai against Accused No.2 in SC No.319/2023 and the Police Officers got an information that, Accused No.2 is in Melekote at Tumakuru District. Then the First Informant along with other Police Officers had been to Melekote on 14.03.2024 in Swift Car bearing Registration No.TN.03.AD.2030 at about 8.00 p.m. and they traced-out Accused No.2 within the jurisdiction of Tilak Park Police Station of Tumakuru District, near TOYOTO Show Room and took him to custody and in a car they were proceeding towards Tilak Park Police Station. By that time, the wife of Accused No.2 ie., Accused No.1 has raised hue and cry and secured her relatives immediately and as a result, the petitioners and others came near the vehicle and started threatening the complainant and other Police Officers. Further, they wrongfully restrained the car uttering that they are going to set fire to the car and pelted stones towards the car indiscriminately and damaged the car. It is also alleged that, they have also assaulted the complainant and others by clubs by attempting on their lives. Further, they wrongfully restrained the car uttering that they are going to set fire to the car and pelted stones towards the car indiscriminately and damaged the car. It is also alleged that, they have also assaulted the complainant and others by clubs by attempting on their lives. When the complainant and others revealed their identity and shown the Non-bailable Warrant issued by the Chennai Court, they torn the warrant and continued their illegal acts and in the said process, Accused No.2 fled from the spot and thereby the petitioners facilitated him in escaping. Then the complainant and other Police Officers obtained treatment and went to Tilak Park Police Station at Tumkauru, wherein a complaint was lodged by the complainant/First Informant, who himself was a police constable. On the basis of the complaint, FIR came to be issued. Then the Investigating Officer arrested the petitioners and they were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and they were remanded to custody. The petitioners have approached the learned Sessions Judge by filing petitions seeking bail and their bail petitions came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that, since the provisions of Section 41-B of Cr.P.C. are not complied, the ingredients of Section 307 are not attracted and the said offence is incorporated only to aggravate the offence. He would also contend that the complainant and other Police Officers were not in Uniform and the Car was also not of the Police Department and it is a private car and hence, there are laches on the part of the prosecution. He also asserted that, the petitioners being innocents have been picked from their respective houses. He would contend that, the petitioners are the permanent residents of Melekote area of Tumkuru and they would undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and sought for admitting the petitioners on regular bail. 6. He also asserted that, the petitioners being innocents have been picked from their respective houses. He would contend that, the petitioners are the permanent residents of Melekote area of Tumkuru and they would undertake to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court and sought for admitting the petitioners on regular bail. 6. Per contra, the learned HCGP would contend that, Accused No.2 was involved in other crime in Chennai and when he was taken to custody from the place called Melekote in Tumakuru, at the instigation of Accused No.1, all these petitioners restrained the complainant/First Informant and damaged the Swift Car by pelting stones and assaulted the complainant by clubs and they have also torn the Non-Bailable Warrant issued by the Court at Chennai, resulting in facilitating Accused No.2 to escape from judicial custody. It is asserted that the ID Parade was held about 15 days earlier, wherein the petitioners were identified by the complainant and other witnesses, and considering the seriousness of the offences and the stage of investigation, this is not a fit case wherein the discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Hence, he would seek for rejection of these petitions. 7. Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the incident is said to have occurred when the complainant and other Police Officers from Chennai have taken custody of Accused No.2, who was involved in SC No.319/2023, pending on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai, wherein a Non-Bailable warrant was issued against him. The allegations disclose that, when with warrant, the complainant along with other Police Officers came in Swift Car on 14.03.2024 at 8.00 p.m., and took Accused No.2 to their custody near Melekote in Tumakuru District and they were proceeding with Accused No.2 in Swift Car bearing Registration No.TN.03.AD.2030, they were wrongfully restrained by the petitioners at the instance of Accused No.1, who is the wife of Accused No.2, and they were threatened of setting fire to their car and pelted stones on the car and damaged the car and also assaulted the complainant and other Police Officers by clubs. It is further specifically alleged that, in the said process, Accused No.2 absconded. It is further specifically alleged that, in the said process, Accused No.2 absconded. The records also disclose that the Investigating Officer has drawn spot mahazar and seized Swift Car brought by the complainant, which sustained damages along with 06 Clubs and glass pieces under PF.21/2024. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the Police Officers are not in Uniform and they were not using the police vehicle so as to disclose their identity. But, there is no evidence to show that the Police Officers were not in Uniform. It is alleged that, in spite of they showing the warrant issued by the City Civil Court at Chennai, the warrant was torn and the Police Officers were man-handled. This is a serious offence and it cannot be taken in a light way and noncompliance of the provisions of Section 41-B of Cr.P.C., would not arise in this regard, as they arrested the absconding Accused No.2. The incident has occurred when Accused No.2 was being taken to Tilak Park Police Station at Tumakuru. If there is any violation, that does not give any authority to the petitioners to take the Law in their own hands for facilitating Accused No.2 to abscond, who was apprehended and even till today both Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are not yet arrested and they are absconding. The allegations are serious in nature as the Police Officers were prevented from discharging their duty and by such incident, the Law and Order itself will be at stake. 9. Though much arguments have been advanced regarding petitioners being implicated falsely, no motive is forthcoming to falsely implicate the petitioners/accused in this crime. Apart from that, the submission of the learned HCGP clearly discloses that, 15 days earlier itself, the ID Parade was held by the Investigating Officer with the assistance of the Executive Magistrate, wherein the petitioners/accused were identified by the complainant and other witnesses. Since the complainant and other witnesses were not conversant with the petitioners and since they have seen them first time at the time of incident, the ID Parade becomes mandatory and it is submitted that the ID Parade was already held. Considering these facts and circumstances, and the manner in which the petitioners/accused have taken the things as granted in protecting the accused involved in other crime, they cannot be granted regular bail straightway, since Accused Nos. Considering these facts and circumstances, and the manner in which the petitioners/accused have taken the things as granted in protecting the accused involved in other crime, they cannot be granted regular bail straightway, since Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are still absconding and the matter is still at the stage of investigation Though it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioners/accused that since the ingredients of Section 41-B of Cr.P.C. are not complied the ingredients of Section 307 are not attracted, the said argument holds no water at this juncture, as prima facie there is material evidence and the complainant was the injured and the wound certificate of the complainant discloses that he was man-handled. 10. Considering the above facts and circumstances, these are not fit cases wherein the discretion can be exercised in favour of petitioners/Accused Nos. 4, 5 & 6 in Crime No.33/2024 of Tilak Park Police Station at Tumakuru as the matter is still at the stage of investigation and Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are still absconding. Under these circumstances, the petitions being devoid of any merits, do not survive for consideration and accordingly they stand dismissed.