High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Attempt to Murder Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence and Long Incarceration. Petitioners/Accused Nos. 5 and 6 in Crime No.214/2019 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC granted regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 77
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru disposed of two connected criminal petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking regular bail. The petitioners, Syed Akbar (Accused No.5) and Sadiqulla Ameen (Accused No.6), were arrested in connection with Crime No.214/2019 registered at Kalasipalya Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapon), 307 (attempt to murder) read with Section 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The factual matrix, as per the complaint, was that on 22.10.2019 at about 9.30 p.m., the complainant and his friend were standing near a shop when a group of 10-12 persons came in two cars, abused them, and attacked them with deadly weapons, causing injuries. The complainant identified the petitioners as part of the assembly. The petitioners had been in judicial custody since their arrest and filed the petitions seeking bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were innocent, no overt acts were attributed to them, and they had been in custody for a considerable period. The learned SPP-2 for the State opposed the bail, contending that the petitioners were involved in a serious offence and that investigation was still pending. The Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the petitioners had been in judicial custody for a considerable period, that the investigation was almost complete, and that no prima facie case was made out against them for the offence under Section 307 IPC. The Court also noted that co-accused had been granted bail by the trial court. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions and granted bail to the petitioners on certain conditions, including executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, appearing before the court regularly, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Regular Bail - Petitioners/accused Nos. 5 and 6 sought bail in Crime No.214/2019 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC - Court considered the period of judicial custody, lack of prima facie evidence of overt acts, and that co-accused had been granted bail - Held that petitioners are entitled to bail on certain conditions (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners/accused are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 read with 149 of IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety. They shall appear before the trial court regularly and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Law Points

  • Bail under Section 439 CrPC
  • Prima facie case
  • Section 307 IPC
  • Section 149 IPC
  • Unlawful assembly
  • Judicial custody period
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (04) 13

Criminal Petition No. 1161 of 2020 connected with Criminal Petition No. 1384 of 2020

2020-04-24

K. Somashekar

Mohammed Tahir (for petitioner in Crl.P.1161/2020), Anes Ali Khan (for petitioner in Crl.P.1384/2020), V.S. Hegde (SPP-2 for respondent)

Syed Akbar (Crl.P.1161/2020) and Sadiqulla Ameen (Crl.P.1384/2020)

State by Kalasipalya PS, Bangalore

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petitions under Section 439 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Regular bail in Crime No.214/2019 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC

Filing Reason

Petitioners were arrested and in judicial custody; they sought bail on grounds of innocence and long incarceration

Previous Decisions

Trial court had not granted bail; co-accused had been granted bail by the trial court

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC? Whether a prima facie case under Section 307 IPC is made out against the petitioners?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners' counsel argued that petitioners are innocent, no overt acts attributed, and they have been in custody for a considerable period. State's counsel opposed bail, citing seriousness of offence and pending investigation.

Ratio Decidendi

Bail is granted under Section 439 CrPC when the accused has been in judicial custody for a considerable period, investigation is almost complete, no prima facie case for attempt to murder is made out, and co-accused have been granted bail.

Judgment Excerpts

Petitioner/Accused No.5 has filed Crl.P.No.1161/2020 and Petitioner/Accused No.6 has filed Crl.P.No.1384/2020 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Cr.No.214/2019 of Kalasipalya Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC. In view of the fact that these accused are in judicial custody since their arrest, they have filed the present petitions seeking grant of regular bail in view of the grounds urged in the petitions.

Procedural History

The petitioners were arrested in Crime No.214/2019 and were in judicial custody. They filed separate bail petitions under Section 439 CrPC before the High Court. The petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common order on 24.04.2020.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 143, 147, 148, 149, 307
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Reinstates Disciplinary Action Against Bank Officer for Misconduct Under UCO Bank Regulations. Charges of Opening Accounts Without Introduction and Deviating from Cash Procedures Were Specific and Inquiry Followed Due Process, Upholding...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Direction to Enroll Members in Co-operative Sugar Society. Section 79 of MCS Act Empowers Sugar Commissioner to Issue Directions for Membership Enrollment Despite Full Share Capital.