IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Natarajan, J.
Sadik Khan @ Sadik & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4834 of 2022
Decided On : 22-06-2022
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought bail in a case involving multiple charges including murder. They argued for bail based on the delay in trial, health issues of their father, and parity with co-accused who were granted bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the evidence, including statements of eye witnesses and medical documents regarding the father's health. The court found that the grounds for bail were not sufficient, especially considering the severity of the alleged crime.
Issues: Delay in trial, health issues of the accused's father, parity with co-accused, and the severity of the alleged crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the severity of the alleged crime and the lack of additional grounds for bail outweighed the arguments based on delay in trial and the health issues of the accused's father.
Final Decision: The bail petition filed by the accused nos.1 and 3 was dismissed, with directions to the trial court to expedite the trial.
ORDER
1. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.', for short) for granting bail in respect of Crime No.20/2021 of Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 143, 144, 148, 302 r/w section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for short) pending in SC.No.160/2021 on the file of IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
3. The case of the prosecution is that one Akram Pasha, brother of deceased Syed Afzal has filed complaint to the Police on 01.02.2021 alleging that when complainant was at Mahalakshmipura, he received information from his brother Syed Irfan about the assault on his another brother Syed Afzal by unknown persons. Complainant rushed to the spot and on enquiry with his brother by name Irfan who is eye witness to the incident. He told that accused persons committed murder of the deceased. After filing complaint, during investigation police arrested the petitioners/accused on 04.01.2021 and remanded to judicial custody. Petitioners approached IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and the same came to be rejected. Hence, petitioners/accused approached this court seeking bail in Crl.P.No.7440/2021 dated 12.11.2021 and the same came to be rejected. Now, petitioners are before this Court on the changed circumstances.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the co-accused persons were granted with bail by coordinate bench of this Court except these petitioners. Present petitioners are in custody for almost one and half year. The trial not yet began. Charge sheet material reveals that accused no.4 who has been granted bail by co-ordinate bench of this court also assaulted on the head of the deceased with iron rod. Therefore, accused no.3 also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The father of the accused no.1 is also the father of accused no.3 is suffering from health ailment. Now there are no one there to look after their father. Their presence is very much essential for their father. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected the successive bail petition and submits that there are no changed circumstances and additional grounds for grant of bail to accused persons. This court has already taken these grounds in detail in earlier occasion and dismissed the petitioner. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.
6. Having heard the arguments, perused the records which reveals that especially the order of this Court while rejecting the bail petition of Afzal at para-6 of the order where it was held that there are eye witnesses to the incident. Statement of eye witnesses and statement recorded under 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., they all stated that accused persons committed murder. The alleged overt act against petitioner/accused no.1 is he has assaulted the deceased on his head with knife. Thereafter, he has dumped stone on the head of the deceased. Accused no.3 who is said to be brother of accused no.1 who also took a salike and caused injury on the head of deceased. Of-course, accused no.4 also said to be assaulted subsequently with iron road. But, deceased was died due to skull fracture and intracranial hemorrhage as a result of blunt and sharp force injury sustained to head. This court also considered the evidence collected during test identification parade where injured eye witnesses identified and told about the overt act of these accused. Considering all these grounds earlier this court has rejected the bail petition. Now, learned counsel submits that father of the accused persons is in dangerous condition, he has produced some medical documents where some New Janapriya private
The severity of the alleged crime and the lack of additional grounds for bail outweighed other considerations.
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 delay in trial proceedings and the grant of bail to other accused can influence the decision to grant bail based on parity and the reliance on circumstantial evidence.
The court emphasized that serious crimes with premeditated actions and potential threats to witnesses warrant denial of bail, especially when no change in circumstances is presented.
(1) Bail – Object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative – Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it is required to ensure that accused person will stand his trial when ....
Point of Law : No material is collected against this petitioner cannot be accepted when he was part of the unlawful assembly and accompanied with deadly weapons and assailants. [Para 17]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.