Shabbir Pasha vs State

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No. 2 in S.C. No. 475/2013 now pending on the file of FTC-XXV, Bangalore City, has sought for releasing him on bail. It is alleged that on 23.11.2012 at about 10.00 a.m. the deceased took CW. 19 and accused No. 1 by name Syed Mujamil in his autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-05-AC-5284 to Gangondanahalli saying that they shall have a drink. On the way CW. 19 got down from the autorickshaw and went away. Thereafter, the deceased and accused No. 1 went to Ravi Bar situated at Gangondanahalli at about 12.00 noon where this petitioner was consuming liquor since 10.30 a.m. At the bar a quarrel ensued and in the said quarrel, A. 2 slapped on the deceased. Thereafter all the three i.e. the deceased, A. 1 and the petitioner, who is A. 2 herein left the bar in the autorickshaw of the deceased and when they came to some distance in the auto rickshaw, again the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and in the said quarrel, A. 1 stabbed the deceased on his chest and thereafter both the accused sped away. On account of the injury sustained, the deceased collapsed at the spot. The public on seeing the deceased removed him to Gurushree Hi-Tech Hospital situated at Chandra Layout where he was declared as having been brought dead. Thereafter CW 1 filed his complaint before Chandra Layout Police.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the material on record reveals that the overt act attributed to this petitioner is only that he was consuming liquor at Ravi Bar since 10.30 a.m. When the deceased and A. 1 came to the said bar later at about 12 noon, a quarrel ensued and in that quarrel this petitioner is alleged to have slapped the deceased and thereafter all the three left the bar and while they were on the way A. 1 stabbed the deceased on his chest, due to which, he sustained the injury and succumbed to the same at the spot. A. 1 stabbing the deceased was not within the knowledge of this petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner be granted bail as he is in custody since 27.11.2012.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the statement of CWs. 17 and 18 - eyewitnesses to the occurrence reveals that these two accused in furtherance of their common intention have committed the murder of the deceased by stabbing him and assaulting him with knife and hands. There is no reason whatsoever at this stage to discard the statement of these two eyewitnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. The overt act attributed to this petitioner is that he slapped the deceased while they were taking drinks in Ravi Bar at Gangondanahalli. Thereafter, it is A. 1 who has inflicted stab injury on the deceased while they were going in the auto rickshaw after coming out of the bar. There is nothing to show at that stage A. 2 had any knowledge about A. 1 inflicting stab injury on the deceased. The allegation against him is he has slapped the deceased at the Bar much prior to A. 1 stabbing the deceased. As the petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2012, in the facts and circumstances I do not find any justification to decline the request of the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

Petition is allowed

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge subject to the following conditions:-

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing.