K.M. Abdul Naseer vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 8 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, registered in respondent-Virajpet Town Police Station in Cr. No. 003/2014.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No. 8 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that in the complaint and FIR, only 5 persons were implicated, but during the course of investigation totally 17 persons have been involved. He also submitted that name of the petitioner was not at all mentioned either in the complaint or in the FIR. As per the prosecution material collected during the investigation, there were no specific allegations against the petitioner showing the involvement in assaulting the injured and thereby committing the alleged offence. He submitted that the other accused persons were also granted with bail and injured has already been discharged from the Hospital and he is out of danger. In this connection, he also relied upon a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in 2001(3) Crimes 410 (SC) in the case of BHAUSAHEB NAGU DHAVARE v/s STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. Hence, he prayed that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

As against this, the learned HCGP, during the course of his arguments submitted that the Prosecution materials and the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of Investigation go to show the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged offence. Hence, he prayed that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.

At the first instance, the case was registered against 5 unknown persons. In the complaint, it is specifically averred that 5 persons have been involved in committing the alleged offence. However, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had arrayed 17 persons as accused in the case. I have also perused the statements of witnesses wherein they have not specifically stated that they had seen the petitioner being present at the spot and he was holding deadly weapon and assaulted the injured. Therefore, no such material has been placed by the Prosecution. Since the other accused persons have already been granted bail and that the injured has been discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which submission has not been disputed by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail.

I have also perused the decision and the principle enunciated in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The alleged offence u/s 307 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. With regard to test identification parade is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that it is only in respect of accused No. 2 only. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be admitted to bail Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.