Abdul Suhham @ Numan vs The State

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent-State.

Both the cases arise out of the same crime bearing Crime No.158/2017.

Criminal Petition No.201406/2017 is preferred under the provisions of Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the

Criminal Petition No.201303/2017 is preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying for he being enlarged on

bail in the event of his arrest.

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.6 and 8 in Crime No.158/2017, pending on the file of V Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi.

The gist of the case is that, the Police Inspector of Ashok Nagar Police Station received credible information on 03.08.2017 at about 6:30 p.m.

that certain persons had congregated at a particular place and were hatching a plan to commit a crime and a country made pistol and deadly

weapons were in their possession, that the complainant i.e., Police Inspector along with his subordinate officers reached the spot at about 7:00

p.m. and observed two four wheeler vehicles parked there and in all there were eight occupants and out of that, four of the them upon noticing the

complainant and his staff escaped from the place in one of the four wheeler vehicle and that the complainant and his staff were able to catch hold of

four accused and upon search and interrogation the complainant recovered a country made pistol and five live bullets and the accused Nos.1 to 4

further stated that they were hatching a plan to finish of one Pradeep @ 7 Star Pradeep who was about to be released from the jail and that the

country made revolver was acquired from Chor Bazar, Hyderabad at the instructions of the said Babar (A-9).

Based on the complaint, the respondent-Police registered a crime in Cr.No.158/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147,

120B r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 25 (1) (A) of the Indian Arms Act . The accused persons were remanded to judicial custody at about

11:30 p.m. The said Babar was arrayed as accused No.9.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent police have identified the present petitioners and arrayed them as

accused on the strength of the information provided by the co-accused. He would contend that the petitioners are wholly innocent and there is no

criminal or bad antecedent against them. He would also submit that the trial Court has been pleased to enlarge the accused Nos.1 to 4 on statutory

bail. Hence, the petitioners are also entitled to similar relief on the ground of parity. He would further contend that, the trial Court erred in holding

that the petitioners also possessed a country made revolver and live bullets etc.

On perusal of the order of the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court has taken note of the objections, preferred by the Public Prosecutor and

has observed that the both the petitioners herein are professional criminals and habitual offenders and that there are several cases and counter

cases registered against and by them. It has also concluded that the charge sheet discloses sufficient material to link the accused persons including

the petitioners herein. It has also concluded that, if the bail is granted, there is every likelihood of the petitioners tampering the prosecution

witnesses and also there is threat to the life of the rival who is presently in detention.

No grounds are made out to demonstrate any error in the reasoning recorded by the trial Court. Hence, this Court does not find any grounds to

allow the petitions. Accordingly, the petitions stand rejected.