Abdul Khadar vs State of Karnataka

H.N. Nagamohan Das

In these petitions, the parties are same. The respondent police registered 9 cases against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 302, 307, 201, 326 of IPC, Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908, Sections 3, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 4 and 5 of Destruction of Public Properties Act. The petitioner is accused No. 29. In this case, the investigation is completed. Charge sheet is filed. The charges are framed and a date has been fixed for trial and witness summons are issued. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application u/s 439 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on bail before the Sessions Judge and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2005. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the Judgments of Supreme Court in Shaheen Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and others, , State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, , Kirthibhai Madhavlal Joshi v. State of Gujrath reported in (2006) 4 SC Cases 680 , Vasanthi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, contend that, the involvement of the accused and the delay in the trial are the most important circumstances to be taken into consideration while considering the petition u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. He contends that, in the instant case, the petitioner is in custody from the year 2009. The only allegation against the petitioner is that, he has not informed to the police about staying of accused No. 1 and 3 in his house.

There is no dispute with regard to law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to above. Keeping in view, the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is necessary to examine the fact situation in the present case.

In the instant case, series of bomb blasts had taken place at Bangalore on 25.07.2008 resulting in death of one person, injuries to others and loss of property. Further by this incident fear psychosis was created in the minds of the people of Bangalore City. From the material on record, it is revealed that, the petitioner came in contact with some of the accused in the jail at Coimbaitore before the incident at Bangalore. It is further revealed that prime accused No. 1 and 3 were staying in the house of petitioner at Nirmalagiri Heggala Village, Virajpet Taluk. Further it is seen that, even after the incident, accused No. 1 and 3 had taken shelter in the house of the petitioner. The material on record also discloses that accused No. 1 and 3 manufactured bombs in the house of the petitioner. This aspect of the matter requires to be proceeded in the evidence. At this stage, it is not proper for this Court to give any opinion on these disputed facts.

The learned SPP Sri. Chandramouli submits, a date has been fixed for the commencement of the trial and witness summons are issued. The incident in question is a matter of national security. Having regard to the involvement of the petitioner in the incident, I am of the considered opinion that, this is not a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail. However, the Special Court is hereby directed to expedite the trial on day to day basis. Accordingly, the petitions are hereby dismissed.