The Karnataka High court recently comprising of a bench of Justice K Natarajan while rejecting the bail plea of two brothers arraigned in a murder case remarked, "Life is important to everybody not only to the accused. But also to the victim family. Therefore, when petitioners have committed brutal murder of one person they cannot seek bail to save life of another person i.e. their father. That apart, there are no additional grounds made out for release them on bail." (Sadik Khan @Sadik v State of Karnataka)
Facts of the case
The accused were arrested in connection with the murder of Syed Afzal in February last year. The case was registered by Electronics City police following a complaint from the victim's brother, Akram Pasha. The duo was charged under sections 341, 323, 143, 144, 148 and 302 (read with section 149) of IPC.
Their bail pleas had been rejected by the sessions court earlier. They subsequently moved the high court, saying all the other accused had been granted bail while they have been in judicial custody for the past year.
Contention of the Parties
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the co-accused persons were granted with bail by co- ordinate 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.
Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected to the successive bail petition and submitted 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 occasions and dismissed the petitioner. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.
Court's observations and Judgment
The bench at the very outset observed, "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 hospital has given report stating that one Ayub Kahan was diagnosed with Bullous Lung disease and underwent multiple intercostals drainage procedure."
The bench dismissing the bail application remarked, "Life is important to everybody not only to the accused. But also to the victim family. Therefore, when petitioners have committed brutal murder of one person they cannot seek bail to save life of another person i.e. their father. That apart, there are no additional grounds made out for release them on bail."
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
