Azghar Shareef vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 498-A, 304-B read with Section 149 of IPC and also under Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act registered by the respondent - Police Station in Crime No. 208/2013 and after investigation alleged offence u/s 302 of IPC is also inserted in the case.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments made the submission that the other accused persons have been granted bail by the orders of this Court and the bail application filed by the present petitioner before this Court has been already rejected by this Court. But the petitioner filed the present petition on the changed circumstances. Counsel made the submission that looking to the allegations made in the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses, they are one and the same of all the accused persons. He also further made the submission that the Complainant who has been examined before the trial Court is turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. In view of this changed circumstances, petitioner may be admitted to bail by imposing reasonable conditions.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent during the course of his arguments made the submission that there is a prima-facie material placed by the prosecution, earlier bail application has been rejected by this Court holding that there is a prima-facie material and there are no changed circumstances in the case to allow the petition and to release accused No. 1 on bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, F.I.R., complaint and other materials placed on record. I have perused the copy of the order dated 6.8.2013 passed by this Court in Crl. P. No. 4221/2013, wherein, accused Nos. 2 and 5 have been enlarged on bail. I have also perused the order passed by this Court dated 28.10.2013 passed in Crl. P. No. 5911/2013. By this order the Court has held that there is a sufficient material placed by the prosecution against the present petitioner. The Court has also observed in the said order at paragraph No. 5, statement of witnesses more particularly that of the parents of the deceased and her brother have been recorded at the time of inquest of Taluka Executive Magistrate, reveals the ill treatment meted out by the petitioner and the deceased. The Court has also held that having regard to the material on record as the prosecution has made out a prima-facie case against the petitioner for the offence u/s 302 of IPC is not entitled to be released on bail Accordingly, the earlier petition was dismissed.

Now, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has been examined before the Court and has not supported the case of the prosecution only on the ground that the complainant turned hostile, the Sessions Court cannot come to the conclusion about the proof or otherwise of the charges in the said sessions matter. The Court has to examine all other witnesses in the case, the Doctor, Investigating Officer, so also the other charge sheet witnesses, and then only, the Court is in a position to come to a conclusion. The Complainant turning hostile is not the ground for this Court to allow the petition and grant bail to the present petitioner, when in the earlier petition and after considering the entire materials, it has been already held that there is a prima-facie material about his involvement in the commission of alleged offence u/s 302 of IPC.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.

However, in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein that the petitioner is having two small children, the learned sessions Judge has to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the main matter itself within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The Registry is directed to send the copy of this order immediately to the concerned Sessions Court.