DAVOOD NOUSHAD vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Since these two petitions are in respect the same crime number and since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these

petitions, they are taken together to dispose of them by this common order.

The first petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.7 and the connected petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.8. Both the petitions are

filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 363

registered in Respondent-Police Station Crime No.260 of 2017; and thereafterwards, the other offences under Sections 341, 367, 302, 201, 212

and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were also included in the said case.

Brief facts of the prosecution case is that one Abdul Hameed is the complainant, wherein he has made the allegation that on 05th October 2017,

he got an information that his son by name Safwan got kidnapped from Chokkabettu at about 6.00 p.m. by one Samsuddin and Safwan Kinnigoli

and others in a car. Hence, he has requested to take action against the accused. Firstly, on the basis of the said complaint, First Information Report

came to be registered for the alleged offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code; and subsequently, other offences came to be included in

the said case.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners-accused No.7 and 8; so also the arguments of the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioneraccused No.8 made the submission that insofar as petitioneraccused No.8 is concerned, there is

no prima facie case made out by the Prosecution as against him. There is no participation of accused No.8 in the actual incident of committing the

alleged murder of the deceased. He also made the submission that as per remand application, it goes to show that accused No.1 approached

petitioner-accused No.8 and told that they have to kidnap the son of the complainant and they have to commit his murder and for that reason he is

in need of a car which can accommodate 5-6 persons. He has also told that if there is any difficulty for him in executing the said work, then also the

petitioner-accused No.8 has to assist him. Learned counsel submits that it is only the allegation that he has supplied the car and he has not

participated in the alleged act of committing the murder of the son of the complainant. He submits that accused No.9 has already been granted bail.

Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner-accused No.8 may also be enlarged on bail.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.7 also made the submission that there is no actual participation of accused No.7 in the alleged

act of committing the murder of the son of the complainant. Hence, he too submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner-accused

No.7 also be admitted to regular bail.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petitions contending that the contents of the remand application clearly

goes to show that before committing the alleged murder of the son of the complainant, it was informed to the petitioners herein that they wanted to

kidnap the son of the complainant and they wanted to eliminate him by committing his murder and for that reason they requested for a car from the

petitioners. Hence, he submitted that there is a alleged offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code regarding the criminal conspiracy

between all the accused. He also submitted that the alleged offence under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is also mentioned in the prosecution

case. Hence, he submitted that there is a prima facie case against both the petitioners herein and they are not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the Bail Petition, the FIR, Complaint and other materials, so also the contents of the remand application

produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perusing the contents of the remand application, prima facie at this stage, it goes to show that

there is a criminal conspiracy between the other accused, so also the present petitioners for kidnapping and committing the murder of the

deceased, who is the son of the complainant. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were not knowing the

fact that the said car would be used for such offences cannot be accepted at this Stage. Looking to the materials, I am of the opinion that the

prosecution placed the prima facie materials as against both the petitioners herein of their involvement in committing the alleged offences. Hence,

these are not the fit cases to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, Criminal Petitions are hereby rejected.