Mr. Sultan Ali vs The State of Karnataka

The Hon''ble Mr. Justice K.N. Keshavanarayana

The Petitioner has been arraigned as Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 68/2011 of Manchenahalli Police Station in Chikkaballapura District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 506 R/w. Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

According to the case of the prosecution, the Petitioner had purchased stones worth about Rs. 30,000/- from the son of the complainant Mohammed Abraham about two years prior to 15.04.2011 and towards the same, the Petitioner herein had paid only Rs. 10,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 20,000/-. Though the complainant and his son were repeatedly demanding the Petitioner herein to pay the balance sum of Rs. 20,000/-, he had not paid the same. Off late, when the complainant demanded the Petitioner to pay the money, he was threatening the Petitioner with injury to his life if demand was made for payment of money. On 15.04.2011 at about 12.00 noon, when the complainant met the Petitioner and demanded money the Petitioner threatened to kill him. At about 5.00 p.m. on the same day, when the complainant was in his shop, the Petitioner herein came there, called the complainant to come out of the shop and since, the complainant did not come out, the Petitioner held the complainant, dragged him but of the shop and tried to assault the complainant on the head with a chopper with an intention to kill him. However, the complainant tried to escape the blow by raising his hands, consequently the blow fell on his left hand fingers, as a result of which, he sustained severe injuries on the fingers of his left hand. At that time, other accused joined the Petitioner herein and assaulted the complainant and on seeing the neigh bourers coming there, the Petitioner and other assailants ran away from the place. Thereafter, the injured complainant was brought to Government Hospital at Gowribidanur and while he was taking treatment in Gowribidanur Hospital, at about 10.50 p.m. on the same day, his statement about the incident was recorded and on the basis of the recorded statement, case came to be registered.

Apprehending his arrest, the Petitioner filed petition u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court seeking the relief of Anticipatory Bail. However, during the hearing of the said petition, it was submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that he would surrender before the jurisdictional Court and move for regular bail. In the light of the said submission, this Court disposed of the said petition directing the trial Court to consider the application of the Petitioner for regular bail within three days from the date of surrender and filing of the application. Accordingly, the Petitioner surrendered before the jurisdictional Court on 26.07.2011 and filed application u/s 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for regular bail. The said petition came to be rejected by order dated 30.07.2011 and the Petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court u/s 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure

The petition is opposed by the Respondent-State.

I have heard the Learned Counsel appearing on both sides and perused the records made available,

The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has made available a copy of the extract of the MLC Register maintained in the Government Hospital at Mulbagal, which indicates that the complainant has sustained a lacerated wound on the left index finger as also on the left middle finger on palmer aspect and the x-ray revealed fracture of middle phalanx of the left index finger. Therefore, the Doctor has described injury No. I as grievous and Injury No. 2 as simple. No doubt, the contents of the statement made by the injured would prima facie indicate an incident of assault by this Petitioner and others. It would also prima facie indicate that the Petitioner herein was armed with a chopper. However. the overt acts attributed against this Petitioner and the part of the body on which the complainant sustained injuries would not indicate that the alleged act was with an intention to commit murder of complainant. Therefore, regard being had to the materials available on record, at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the father of this Petitioner has lodged and report at about 11.00 p.m. on 17.04.2011 alleging that the complainant herein and Ors. trespassed into his house at about 12.00 noon on 15.04.2011 armed with deadly weapons like chopper etc. and committed acts of rioting and assault on him and his family members and damaged the glass panels of the windows and the door and on the basis of such complaint case in Crime No. 72/2011 has been registered against the complainant herein and others. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner herein is guilty of the offence punishable u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code, the Petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 68/2011 of Manchenahalli Police Station on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate/Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that, -

i) he shall not tamper or terrorist the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

ii) he shall net indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged against him;

iii) he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall co-operate in investigation of the case;

iv) he shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing without fail;

v) he shall mark his attendance with the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 p.m. till the disposal of the case.