Moula Ali @ Moula Shaikh vs State Of Karnataka

V. Srishananda, J

Heard learned counsel Sri Mahantesh H. Desai for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Accused No.5 is the petitioner, who has been arrested by Ragavendranagar Police Station, on 23.04.2025, in respect of Crime No.44/2025, whereunder 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2), 190 of BNS, 2023 offences are alleged.

Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that on 23.04.2025 at about 12.50 a.m., when the complainant was in his house, the first accused Rizwan said to have called him over telephone near the KGN pan-shop. Complainant in turn told his friend Saddam to accompany him and both Saddam and complainant reached KGN pan-shop. At that juncture, all of a sudden, Rizwan pulled out a talwar and assaulted the complainant on his head. When the complainant cried for help, his followers, namely, Khaja Mainoddin, Baba @ Jilani, Riyan, Maulali, Irfan, Khaja Pasha have assaulted the complainant with hands on his face and kicked him. Saddam said to have pacified the quarrel and injured was taken to the hospital.

After registering the case police are investigating the matter, inter-alia arrested the present petitioner, who is accused No.5.

Bail request made by the petitioner was turned down by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the injured was taking treatment in the hospital and he has suffered grievous injuries on his head. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel Sri Mahantesh Desai for the petitioner contended that accused No.1 and accused No.7 have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, on the ground of parity petitioner is also entitled for grant of bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grant of bail with vehemence, by contending that it is not the individual overt-act that should be looked into in a matter of this nature when there is an allegation of sharing of common object and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the overt-acts that has been alleged against the present petitioner is that he assaulted the complainant with hands on his face.

Taking note of the fact that accused is in custody on from 24.04.2025, continuation of the present petitioner in the custody is no longer warranted as the investigation has sufficiently progressed and injured is discharged from the hospital.

Other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

Hence, the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed.

ii. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

b) Petitioner shall mark his attendance every alternate Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 02.00 p.m., till the final report is filed.

c) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of a Kalabargi District without prior permission.

d) Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

e) Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.