Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Kar) 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.NATARAJAN, J.
MR. IMRAN, S/O. ABDUL LATHIFF - Appellant
Vs.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MULKI POLICE STATION, MANGALORE CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2557 OF 2021 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION No.763 OF 2021, CRIMINAL PETITION No.2555 OF 2021, CRIMINAL PETITION No.2560 OF 2021, CRIMINAL PETITION No.2564 OF 2021, CRIMINAL PETITION No.2572 OF 2021 AND CRIMINAL PETITION No.2580 OF 2021
Decided On : 26-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant :SRI BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE
For The Respondent:SRI SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE for SRI S. SUNIL KUMAR, SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP

Point of Law: Cancellation of Bail – Court while granting bail has not considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment in the event of bail, likelihood of repetition of the offences and the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 114, 109, 120B, 341, 307 and 302 – Bail – Cancellation of - whether Sessions Judge while granting bail has followed the guidelines and given reason for granting bail in case of murder that too occurred in presence of so many witnesses under the broad light in front of HDFC Bank - Whether petitioner/complainant can file present petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., before this Court for cancellation of bail without exhausting remedy before Sessions Judge who granted bail? - Whether petitioner has made out a ground for cancellation of bail granted by Sessions Judge against respondent No.2/accused persons in above said cases?"
Finding the Court :
Court that Sessions Judge was not at all given any reason for granting bail. On perusal of order, accused No.7 who is respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.2557/2021 has been granted bail by Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc. No. 590/2020 wherein, learned Sessions Judge while accused No.1 has been enlarged on bail by High Court of Karnataka in Crl.P.No.4331/2020 and accused No.7 is also entitled for bail on ground of parity and role attributed against accused No.7 need to be taken into consideration to ascertain - Co-ordinate Benches of Court have held that Sessions Court can also exercise power to cancel bail, therefore, they shall approach trial Court first and then, they have to approach Court for cancellation of bail. In this regard, Sri M.P. Balakrishna, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has contended that provisions of Section 439(2) is a concurrent jurisdiction, power can also be exercised by Sessions Judge as well as High Court - Bail granted by learned Sessions Judges requires to be cancelled which are under challenge in these petitions. Hence, I pass following.
Result : Criminal Petitions are allowed

ORDER :

Criminal Petition Nos.2557/2021, 2555/2021, 2564/2021, 2572/2021, 2580/2021 and 2560/2021 are filed by the defacto complainant under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for cancellation of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judges to accused Nos.7, 4, 3, 2, 10 and 9. Whereas, Crl.P.No.763/2021 is filed by the State against accused No.9 for granting bail in Crime No.38/2020 registered by the Mulki Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 and 395 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and also Sections 120(B) and 114 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners/accused, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and Sri Sandesh Chouta, senior advocate for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.Nos.2557/2021, 2555/2021, 2564/2021, 2572/2021 (Accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 7). Though, respondent No.2 who is accused No.10 in Crl.P.No.2580/2021 served, but unrepresented. Hence, this Court has appointed Sri B.S. Prasad for respondent No.2 through the Legal Services Committee. Sri A.P. Pulakeshi, learned counsel appeared for accused No.9 (respondent in Crl.P.No.763/2021).

3. The case of the prosecution is that one Imran S/o Abdul Lathif filed a complaint to the Police on 05.06.2020. Initially the Police registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 and 395 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and after investigation the Police have filed the charge-sheet by adding Sections 114, 109 and 120B of IPC alleging that accused No.1-Davood Hakim and C.W.2-Badrul Muneer had serious enmity between them. Hence, accused No.1 and other accused have conspired with each other in order to eliminate C.W.2 and in pursuant to the conspiracy, on 05.06.2020 in the evening when C.W.1-Imran i.e., complainant along with C.Ws.2 and 3, the injured persons Badrul Muneer and Hiyaz were returning in their car bearing registration No.MH-06-AB-7677 after having transaction in the HDFC Bank, Mulki Branch, at about 4.00 p.m. to 4.05 p.m., near the service road, accused Nos.2 to 10 at the instance of accused No.1 in view of the conspiracy, came near the car in the motorcycle, intercepted the car of C.W.2 and accused Nos.2 and 3 abused C.W.2 in filthy language. Accused No.2 (respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.2572/2021) assaulted C.W.2 and his companion with knife. Accused No.3 (respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.2564/2021) assaulted with wooden club. Accused No.4 (respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.2555/2021) assaulted with soda bottle and accused No.7 (respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.2557/2021) assaulted C.W.2 with concrete stone. At that time, when the deceased-Abdul Lathif came there and accused No.6 pushed and pulled him and all the accused persons chased Abdul Lathif and made him to fall down on the ground near the entrance of the HDFC Bank and the accused persons assaulted the deceased with the deadly weapons. Consequently, Abdul Lathif died on the spot. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Police registered a case showing nine accused persons in the FIR. Subsequently, the charge-sheet came to be filed showing totally ten accused persons. Accused No.7 moved a bail petition before the Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.590/2020, accused No.4 has filed a bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.651/2020, accused No.3 has filed a bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.768/2020, accused No.2 has filed a bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.52/2021, accused No.10 has filed a bail petition in Crl.Misc.No.729/2020 and as the bail petitions came to be allowed by the learned Sessions Judges and as against granting of bail, the defacto complainant is before this Court by filing these petitions for cancellation of bail and Crl.P.No.763/2021 filed by the State against accused No.9.

4. Accused No.1 has filed a bail petition before this Court which came to be allowed in Crl.P.No.4331/2020 dated 21.09.2020 and the same is chal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Kar) 357

Point of Law: Cancellation of Bail – Court while granting bail has not considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, severity of the punishment in the event of bail, likelihood of repetition of the offences and the reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced.

Cases Referred (13)