Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Natarajan, J.
Fairoz Khan @ Fairoz Alias Bonda - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka, State Of Udyagiri P.S. - Respondent
Crl.P. No. 5345 of 2022
Decided On : 27-07-2022
Bail - Criminal Law - Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - Offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC - [Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302, 506 r/w 149 of IPC] - The court dismissed the bail petition of the accused based on the statements of eye witnesses and the likelihood of committing similar offences if released on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No.3, filed a bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others committed the murder of the deceased. The petitioner claimed innocence and argued that there was no motive or intention to commit the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the statements of eye witnesses and the nature of the overt acts of the petitioner and other accused persons indicated their involvement in the murder. The court also noted the likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offences and threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses if released on bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the involvement of the petitioner in the murder, the credibility of the statements of the eye witnesses, and the potential threat posed by the petitioner if granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the statements of the eye witnesses and the nature of the overt acts to determine the involvement of the petitioner in the murder. Additionally, the court considered the likelihood of the petitioner committing similar offences and interfering with the prosecution witnesses as grounds for denying bail.
Final Decision: The bail petition of the accused, petitioner-accused No.3, was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Cr.No.217/2021 registered by Udayagiri Police Station for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., JLB Road, Mysuru in C.C.No..117/2022.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Mohammed Sadiq Khan, brother of the deceased, police registered a case against unknown persons on 13.10.2021. Subsequently, police recorded further statement of wife of deceased and statements of CW.9 and 10 and came to know this petitioner caused murder of deceased Hameed Khan in the wee hours i.e., on 12/13.10.2021 along with other accused persons. The police suspecting this petitioner and others, on 19.10.2021 recovered weapons and remanded to judicial custody. After investigation filed charge sheet. The bail petition filed by the petitioner before trial Court seeking regular bail was rejected. Hence, he is before this Court seeking regular bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offences. He has been falsely implicated. Name of the petitioner not mentioned in the FIR or complaint. There is delay in recording statement of eye witnesses and even though statement of CW.2 - wife of deceased was recorded on the very same day, but she has not mentioned the name of the accused. After that, on 14.10.20221 she has mentioned name of the accused persons. Quarrel took place in respect of payment to be payable by the deceased to CW.11 and there is no motive or intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Statement of the eye-witnesses was recorded after two days of the incident. Even otherwise, statement of CW.2 as last seen was recorded. There is no eye-witnesses to the incident. There is no overt act against this petitioner except holding hands of the deceased. The weapons were already recovered. Investigation is completed and charge sheet has already been filed. The petitioner is in custody for more than 9 months. There are no antecedents against him. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court, if he is granted bail. Hence prayed for allowing the bail petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader has highly objected the bail petition and contended that there are two eye witnesses i.e., CWs 9 and 10 and their statements were recorded on the very next day of the incident. Further statement of the wife of the deceased also reveals that the petitioner along with others after planning to do away with the life of the deceased, committed the murder. There is common object attracted against the accused persons for having committed the murder of the deceased. The investigation has completed and charge-sheet has already been filed and if he is granted bail, he may commit similar offences. Hence, prays for dismissal of the bail petition.
6. Upon considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP and on perusal of the record, it reveals that admittedly, FIR was registered against unknown persons on the complaint of the brother of the deceased. Statement of CW.2 - wife of the deceased was also recorded on 12.10.2021 may be a wrong date. The incident took place on 13.10.2021 at 12.30 a.m. She has stated that on the date of the incident accused persons along with her husband went for drinking alcohol in regular place, where they normally used to sit after their work. She has also stated that on the date of incident at about 9.15 p.m. her husband came back to the house and told her that he will come back after informing his friends and thereafter he would accompany her to the hospital, as their son was unwell. At about 10.10 p.m. he came back and they went to the hospital. Further statement was recor
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the statements of eye witnesses and the nature of overt acts can be crucial in determining the involvement of the accused in a criminal offenc....
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. and the consideration of whether the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the lack of evidence establishing the accused's intention to commit murder under Sec. 302 of IPC and the completion of the investigation.
Bail eligibility based on circumstantial evidence and parity with co-accused.
Bail applications require a balance of crime severity, punishment nature, and prima facie involvement; refusal is justified when allegations are grave.
The severity of the offences, lack of material contradictions in witness statements, and the reasonable apprehension of witness tampering and threat to the complainant are crucial factors in determin....
In cases where accused persons are alleged to have shared a common intention under Section 149 of IPC, individual roles may not be required to be considered for granting bail.
The severity of the alleged crime and the lack of additional grounds for bail outweighed other considerations.
Prima facie evidence and the potential threat posed by the accused are crucial factors in determining the grant of bail in criminal cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of constant communication with the other accused and their proximity to the place of the incident can influence the decision on g....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
