Bilal S/O Adam Shaikh vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 6394 Kant

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                          DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

                                           BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101765 OF 2023

                   BETWEEN:

                   BILAL S/O. ADAM SHAIKH,
                   AGE; 34 YEARS, OCC: FABRICATION,
                   R/O: AMBEDKAR NAGAR, ANGOL,
ROHAN
HADIMANI           BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590003.
T                                                              ...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T         (BY SRI Z.M. HATTARKI AND SRI A.M. MULLA, ADVOCATES)
Date:
2023.09.08
15:37:48 -0700
                   AND:

                   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                   THROUGH TILAKWADI, POLICE STATION,
                   REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH,
                   DHARWAD.
                                                            ...RESPONDENT

                   (BY SRI PRAVEEN UPPER HCGP)

                        THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
                   SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT A BAIL TO THE
                   PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4, BELAGAVI TILAKWADI POLICE
                   STATION   IN  CRIME    NO.08/2023    FOR   THE   OFFENCE
                   P/U/SECTION 120(B), 364, 302, 201 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL
                   CODE WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XITH ADDITIONAL
                   DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE BELAGAVI IN SESSION CASE
                   NO. 94/2023.
                                   2




    IN   THIS   PETITION,  ARGUMENTS    BEING  HEARD,
JUDGMENT RESERVED, COMING ON FOR "PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The petitioner/Accused No.4 has filed this petition

under Section 439 of Cr.PC for enlarging him on bail in Crime

No.08/2023 registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 354, 302 , 201,120(B) and r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and pending on the file of XI Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Belagavi in SC No.94 of 2023.

2. In brief, the prosecution's case revolves around a

complaint lodged by Smt. Fatima Dawood Khan Pathan on 07th

February, 2023, at the Tilakwadi Police Station, leading to the

registration of Crime No. 8 of 2023. The accused are charged

with offenses under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal

Code. The information alleges that Smt. Muskan Imran Shaikh,

the informant's younger sister, had a relationship with Accused

No. 1, a fact known to the entire family. It is further contended

that, under the guise of marriage, Accused No.1 maintained this

relationship. When Muskan earnestly requested Accused No.1 to

marry her, he declined. Consequently, she suffered emotional

distress and informed the informant that Accused No.1 had

pressured her into divorcing her husband, leading to her

subsequent divorce. It is alleged that the informant and other

family members extended an invitation to Accused No. 1 to their

residence, urging him to marry Muskan. Regrettably, he

declined this proposition, and despite this refusal, Accused No.1

and Muskan continued their relationship. On 20th August, 2022,

at 7:00 am, the informant received a call from her sister,

Rahima, inquiring about Muskan's whereabouts. The informant

responded negatively and inquired why Rahima had asked such

a question. Rahima explained that Muskan had left her home,

telling her daughter that she was going to the medical shop at

7:30 pm on 19th August, 2022, and had not returned since.

Further it is alleged that at 8:30 pm, the informant visited the

residence of Accused No.1 and engaged in a quarrel with him

before leaving the premises. The informant's sister, Smt.

Julekha Fairozkhan Pathan, lodged a missing person's report on

22nd August, 2022. On 05th February, 2023, at approximately

7:00 pm, near Belagavi Bus Stand, the informant and her

nephew, Ijaj Imtiyaz Shaikh, encountered Salim, also known as

Mohammedisak Abdulrahim Shiroor, from Goa. In response to

Ijaj's inquiry about his missing aunt, he was informed by

someone that Accused No.1 had mentioned, "Pinky Ka Kam

Khatam Hualo." This shocking revelation was immediately

conveyed to the informant.

3. Based on the aforementioned facts and allegations, the

Tilakwadi Police registered a case under Sections 302 and 201 of

Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 in Crime No.8 of 2023.

Following this, the petitioner was apprehended on 08th February,

2023, at 02:40 am, near Nath Pai Kere and subsequently

arrested at 03:30 am. On the same day, the petitioner was

presented before the relevant Court and has been in judicial

custody since.

4. The petitioner initially submitted a bail application in

Criminal Misc. No.288 of 2023 before the XI Additional District

and Sessions Judge in Belagavi; however, it was rejected on 24th

March, 2023. Discontent with this decision, the petitioner

withdrew the application. Subsequently, the petitioner filed

another bail application before the High Court in Criminal Petition

No.100929 of 2023, but it was later withdrawn. Following the

completion of the investigation, the petitioner filed a bail

application in Criminal Misc. No.568 of 2023 before the same

court, which was subsequently rejected on 12th June, 2023.

Consequently, as a result of these developments, the petitioner

has now presented this fresh bail application before this Hon'ble

Court.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER/ACCUSED.NO.4:

5. The petitioner vehemently maintains his innocence in

response to the charges leveled against him. Notably, the First

Information Report (FIR) that led to the petitioner's identification

as Accused No.4 appears to lack substantial evidence, raising

questions about the basis for the accusation. Furthermore, it is

noteworthy that the FIR was lodged a full six months after the

alleged offence took place. Additionally, an examination of the

remand application suggests that the case hinges primarily on an

alleged extra-judicial confession made to a single individual,

giving rise to suspicions regarding potential ulterior motives in

implicating the accused. The final report underscores the case's

reliance on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial

confession, both considered weaker forms of evidence.

Consequently, this further highlights the absence of any

apparent nexus between the petitioner and the deceased.

6. The petitioner's purported role in this case is not one of

direct participation in the alleged offence. Instead, it is alleged

that prior to the commission of the offence, the petitioner had

simply retrieved an auto from Inox Theatre to Angol. This

crucial detail underscores the lack of the petitioner's involvement

in the said crime. Moreover, there is a conspicuous absence of

prima facie evidence against the petitioner that would

substantiate the alleged offence. Furthermore, the petitioner is

not only prepared but also eager to adhere to all conditions that

this Hon'ble Court may impose.

7. The petitioner counsel in order to substantiate his

arguments relied upon the decisions in the case of DATTARAM

SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2018)3 SCC

22; in the case of SHRIKANTH KALLAPPA KATAKATTI v. STATE in

Criminal petition No.100687 of 2020 decided on 12th August,

2020; and in the case of SIDDAPPA DODDASADEPPA

GUNDYAGOL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2009(6) KAR.

L.J. 95.

8. There exists no prima facie evidence to substantiate the

alleged offenses against the petitioner. The petitioner stands

fully prepared and willing to adhere to all conditions set forth by

this Court. Furthermore, the petitioner is ready and willing to

provide ample surety, as may be required, to the complete

satisfaction of this Court and has prayed to allow this petition.

9. Respondent-State strongly opposed the petition as the

alleged offences are rigorous in nature and are punishable with

death sentence.

10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the

prosecution material.

11. From the prosecution papers, it becomes evident that

the complaint was filed on 07th February, 2023. According to the

contentions made by the prosecution, the alleged incident is said

to have occurred on 19th August, 2022. The complainant, elder

sister of deceased, became aware of this incident through Ijahan

Imthihaz Sheik, the son of the complainant's sister. Ijahan

informed her that on 05th February, 2022, at around 7:00 pm,

Accused No.1-Asif Macchevale, mentioned that when he

discussed the disappearance of the deceased Muskan, he said,

"Pinky ka kaam katham huvalo". On the same day, he relayed

this information to the complainant, and subsequently, the

complaint was lodged at the Tilakwadi Police Station on 07th

February, 2023. Later on statement of accused.No.1 entire story

of the prosecution is set up. No doubt, the case is based on the

circumstantial evidence, the overt act of the accused No.4 is, in

furtherance of conspiracy, he along with Firoz, brought the car

bearing No.KA.22/MA.3161 and took back the auto rickshaw

bearing No. KA.22/C.0037.

12. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 08th February,

2023 and it is also evident from the records that the charge

sheet has already been laid after completion of investigation,

and his presence is no more required by the Investigating

Agency.

13. Considering the facts and circumstances, reports,

statements made by the prosecution witnesses, and most

importantly, considering the alleged role of the accused in the

alleged crime, so also, forceful submissions of the Petitioner's

counsel, in my considered opinion, the petitioner/Accused No.4

can be admitted on bail subject to certain conditions. The

apprehensions raised by the learned High Court Government

Pleader can be meted-out by imposing conditions. Hence, the

petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

1. The petition is allowed;

2. The petitioner/Accused No.4 is directed to be enlarged on

bail in Crime No.08/2023 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 354, 302 , 201,120(B) and r/w 34

of Indian Penal Code and pending on the file of XI Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in SC No.94 of 2023,

on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to

the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to following

conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the trial Court;

iv) The Petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted by a specific order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

lnn