w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Suhel Khan @ Suhel @ Mohmed Ahmed Khan v/s The State of Karnataka by Rep. by State Public Prosecutor


Company & Directors' Information:- AHMED AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27320DL1997PTC086861

Company & Directors' Information:- T AHMED & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51900WB1947PTC014930

Company & Directors' Information:- M S AHMED & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1932PTC007608

Company & Directors' Information:- J. AHMED AND COMPANY LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999MH1954PLC009225

    Criminal Petition No. 1180 of 2019

    Decided On, 25 April 2019

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

    For the Petitioner: B. Lethif, Advocate. For the Respondent: M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.8/2019 of Udayagiri Police Station, for the offence P/U/S. 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 364-A, 307, 504, 506 R/W Sec. 149 of IPC.)

1. This case is taken out of turn on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner is suffering from piles and he has to undergo operation immediately and hence, the case be taken out of turn.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.08/2019 of Udayagiri Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 364-A, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

4. The gist of the complaint is that, about seven months prior to the alleged incident, the complainant came from Saudi Arabia and there was a financial dispute between the complainant and the accused and in this behalf enmity developed between them and on 25.12.2018, when the complainant was on his way home and he reached near Satagalli Ring Road, at about 7.30, near VTU College, accused No.1 came and intercepted and abused in a filthy language and took him in a motor bike to a terrain place and assaulted him by hands and kicked with feet and assaulted with wooden piece on all parts of his body and also assaulted with an iron pipe and thereafter, took him to Prajwal Hospital at Bannimantap. After he got discharged, he filed a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the petitioner/accused is innocent and he has not committed any offence. Because of the financial dispute, a false case has been registered against the petitioner/accused. He further submitted that, accused Nos. 2 to 4 have already been released on bail and on the ground of parity, the petitioner/accused is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 25.12.2018 and the complainant has got registered the complaint after his discharge from the hospital after seventeen days. He further submitted that at the time when the complainant got admitted to the hospital, the history given by himself clearly goes to show that he has suffered injuries due to road traffic accident because of head on collision between two vehicles. That itself falsifies the entire case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Even there is no material to show that the complainant has been abducted for ransom and he has been assaulted. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State vehemently argued and submitted thatthe petitioner/accused having developed financial enmity with the complainant, intercepted the complainant when the complainant was on his way home and abused in filthy language and took him to a lonely place and assaulted him with hands and wooden pieces and iron pipe and caused grievous injuries and also snatched Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. It is his further submission that during the course of investigation, an amount of Rs.7,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the accused/petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused is a very influential person and if he is released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he may not be available for interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. The complaint itself clearly discloses the fact that because of financial dispute between the complainant and the accused, there was enmity between both of them and though the alleged incident took place on 25.12.2018, the complaint has been filed on 12.01.2019 after a lapse of 17 days and as could be seen from the medical records, it is due to road traffic accident which has taken place because of head on collision between two two-wheelers, creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Even the records indicate that accused 2 to 4 have already been released on bail. The charge sheet has been filed and the accused/petitioner is not required for the purpose of further investigation. The injuries sustained by the complainant have all healed up and he is out of danger. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In the circumstances, I feel that on stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused is released on bail, it will meet the ends of justice.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.8/2019 of Udayagiri Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 364-A, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC subject to the following conditions;

i) Petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

ii) He s

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

hall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner directly or indirectly. iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without the prior permission of the Court. (iv) He shall not indulge in similar type of activities during the trial. (v) He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e. on every 1st between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., before the concerned police station till the trial is concluded. vi) He shall be regular in attending the trial. If he remains absent for a day, the trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail and take him to custody.
O R