Sharookh @ Shaikh Mastan vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10398 Kant

                             1


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.200713/2022

BETWEEN:

SHAROOKH @ SHAIKH MASTAN
S/O SHAIK MASHAKSAB,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: GOUNDI WORK,
R/O NOORANI MOHALLA, KALABURAGI.

                                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
ROZA POLICE STATION,
NOW REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIIONAL SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.

                                             ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: SHIVKUMAR TENGLI, AGA)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.24/2016
OF ROZA POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 148, 302, 120(B), R/W 149 OF INDIAN
PENAL CODE, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI IN
S.C.NO.175/2019.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                2


                          ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.3 (as per charge sheet) is

before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439

of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.24/2016 of Roza Police Station,

pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Kalaburagi in S.C.No.175/2019, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302,

120(B) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for

short 'IPC') on the basis of the first information lodged by

the informant-Afsar Baig.

2. Heard Sri. Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri. Shivkumar Tengli, learned

Additional Government Advocate for the respondent.

Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3, as per

charge sheet. He has been falsely implicated in the matter

without any basis. Initially, he was enlarged on bail vide

order dated 31.08.2016 passed in Crl.Misc.No.961/2016.

He attended the Court till 2019 in S.C.No.155/2016.

Thereafter, he could not appear before the Court. Accused

No.1 was tried in S.C.No.155/2016 and he is acquitted,

vide judgment dated 14.05.2020 on the file of learned II

Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi. In the meantime,

split-up charge sheet was filed and case against accused

No.3 is registered in S.C.No.175/2019. The petitioner was

apprehended by executing the non-bailable warrant on

15.11.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The

case against accused No.4 is already abated. While

acquitting accused No.1, the trial Court specifically held

that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of

accused No.1 as alleged. Under such circumstances, there

are no prima-facie materials to connect the present

petitioner to the offence in question. His detention in

custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. He is the

permanent resident of the address mentioned in the

cause-title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide

by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this

Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Government

Advocate opposing the petition submitted that serious

allegations are made against the petitioner-accused No.3

for having committed the offence, which is punishable

either with death or imprisonment for life. Even though,

petitioner was enlarged on bail initially during the year

2016, he remained absconding. The conduct of the

petitioner disentitles him from seeking release on bail.

Since S.C.No.175/2019 is pending for trial, the

enlargement of the petitioner on bail may further delay the

trial. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would

arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for

the following:

REASONS

6. Serious allegations are made against the

present petitioner and other accused for having committed

the offence, which is punishable either with death or

imprisonment for life. The trial of accused No.1 is

concluded in S.C.No.155/2016 and he is acquitted as the

trial Court formed an opinion that the prosecution has

failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable

doubt. In the meantime, the petitioner remained

absconding and split-up charge sheet was filed which is

registered in S.C.No.175/2019, pending for trial. In the

meantime, the petitioner was apprehended by executing

non-bailable warrant on 15.11.2021. The conduct of the

petitioner in absconding before the trial Court cannot be

justified in any manner. However, the main accused is

accused No.1, who is already acquitted by the trial Court.

Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also

entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which

will take care of the apprehension expressed by the

learned AGA that the petitioner may abscond or may

tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses and further

reasonable conditions may be imposed to secure the

presence of the petitioner before the trial Court, which will

enable the Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in

Crime No.24/2016 of Roza Police Station, on obtaining the

bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)

with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the

conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at

liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial

Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to

verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of

the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties

and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to

be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days.

The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the

sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SMJ