Sajjad Khan @ Sajjad vs State By Devarajeevanahalli ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1788 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.371 OF 2021


BETWEEN

SAJJAD KHAN @ SAJJAD
S/O LATE MASTAN KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT: A.S. APARTMENT,
AMBEDKAR MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD,
M.M.LAYOUT, KAVALBYRASANDRA,
DEVARA JEEVAN HALLI (DJ HALLI)
BENGALURU-560032.
                                             ... APPELLANT

(BY Ms. RAKSHA KEERTHANA.K., ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI: KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1.     STATE BY DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI P.S.,
       INVESTIGATED BY ATC, CCB
       BENGALURU,
       REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
       BENGALURU-560001.


2.     SRI. R. AKHANDA SRINIVASA MURTHY,
       S/O LATE RAMAYYA,
                                2




     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     POLITICIAN, NO.32,
     KAVALABAIRASANDRA, R.T.NAGAR POST,
     BENGALURU-560032.

                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: THEJESH P. HCGP A/W
    SRI: P. PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.PP FOR R1;
    SRI: MURTHY D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                            ---


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE REJECTION
ORDER DATED 12.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU     (CCH-71)   IN   CRL.MISC.NO.5482/2020     AND
RELEASE     THE   APPELLANT    ON    REGULAR     BAIL    IN
CR.NO.219/2020 IN SPL.C.NO.744/2020 OF THE RESPONDENT
D.J.HALLI POLICE, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 144, 145, 447, 448, 435, 436, 395, 427,
120(B) R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 2 OF KPDLP ACT AND
SECTION 3(2), (iii), (iv), (v), (va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND
SECTION 25(1B)(b) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH-71), BENGALURU.


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
                                   3




                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant / accused No.34

assailing the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the learned LXX

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,

Bengaluru (CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.5482/2020, rejecting the

application filed by him under section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent Sri.Murthy D.Naik has raised preliminary objection

regarding the maintainability of the appeal, contending that the

said application having been rejected by the Trial Court before

the submission of the charge sheet, the appellant cannot

maintain the appeal unless fresh application has been moved

before the Trial Court after submission of the charge sheet.

3. I do not find any substance in the said submission.

In the event any subsequent events has taken place after the

dismissal of the earlier application filed by the appellant, the

same could be taken into account by this Court, as the appeal is

a continuation of the proceedings. For the said reason, the

objection is rejected.

Heard Kum.Raksha Keertha.K., learned counsel for

appellant.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that no

material is produced by the Investigating Agency in proof of

presence or involvement of the appellant in the alleged

occurrence. Except making bald and general allegations in the

charge sheet that the appellant was also one of the rioters, there

being no prima facie material to show the complicity of the

appellant in the alleged occurrence, rejection of the application

by the Trial Court is patently illegal and deserves to be interfered

with by this Court. Learned counsel has produced copies of the

order passed by this Court on the applications filed by accused

Nos.29 and 33 in Criminal Appeal No.1318/2020 and Criminal

Appeal No.358/2021 and also seeks parity with the said accused.

5. The application is opposed by the respondent No.2

by filing a detailed statement of objections, but on perusal of the

said objections, I do not find anything therein pointing out the

overt acts or incriminating evidence against the appellant so as

to deny bail to him. Considering the identical set of facts, the

accused Nos.29 and 33 have been enlarged on bail for want of

prima facie material. As the appellant herein also stands on par

with accused Nos.29 and 33 who are already enlarged on bail,

the benefit of the said order requires to be extended to the

appellant on the principle of parity.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated

12.10.2020 passed by learned LXX Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) in

Crl.Misc.No.5482/2020 is set-aside.

The application filed by the appellant herein/accused No.34

under section 439 Cr.P.C. before the trial court is allowed.

i) The appellant - Mr.Sajjad Khan @ Sajjad is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

ii) He shall regularly appear before the trial court on every date of hearing without fail unless exempted by orders of the Court.

iii) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

iv) He shall not get himself involved in similar offences.

v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court until conclusion of trial without prior permission.

If any of these conditions are violated, liberty is reserved

to the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail in accordance

with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bss.