Mujahid Khan @ Mujju vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1846 Kant

                            1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                       BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 98 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

MUJAHID KHAN @ MUJJU
SON OF JABEER KHAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YELARS
R/AT IDGA MOHALLA ROAD,
NEAR NOOR MASIDHI
D J HALLI, BENGALURU - 560 045.
                                         ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAKSHITH R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY D J HALLI P. S.
       REP BY SPL. P.P.
       AT BENGALURU - 01.

2.     R. AKANDA SRINIVAS
       SON OF LATE RAMMAYYA
       MLA, PULAKESHI NAGAR
       R/AT NO.32, KAVAL BYRASANDRA,
       R.T NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 32.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR., SPL.P.P. A/W
    SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1;
   SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                2


      THIS CRL. A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN SPL. C.
NO. 744/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 2 OF THE
K.P.D.L.P ACT AND SECTION 427,144,120B,143 145, 435,
436, 395 R/W 149 OF IPC 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
ADDITONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, BENGLAURU.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant / accused No.35

assailing the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by the

learned LXX Addl. City Civil Judge and Sessions Judge and

Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-71) in

Crl.Misc.No.7625/2020, 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 maintainability of the appeal,

contending that the said application having been rejected

by the Trial Court before 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.

4. Heard Sri Rakshith R., learned counsel for

appellant.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The application is opposed by the respondent

No.2 by making oral submission. I do not find anything in

the submission pointing out the overt acts or incriminating

evidence against the appellant so as to deny bail to him.

Considering the identical set of facts, 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

19.12.2020 passed by learned LXX Addl. City Civil Judge

and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-

71) in Crl.Misc.No.7625/2020, is set-aside.

The application filed by the appellant herein/accused

No.35 under section 439 Cr.P.C. before the trial court is

allowed.

i) The appellant - Mr.Mujahid Khan @ Mujju 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

SA Ct:sr