Aslam Sab Mehaboobsab Ramadurg vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2014

                          1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH
      DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

                       BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100037/2014

BETWEEN:

ASLAM SAB MEHABOOBSAB RAMADURG
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: COOLIE
R/O. MYADAR ONI, OLD HUBLI
HUBLI.
DIST: DHARWAD.
                                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.: VIJAY MALALI ADV. FOR M/S. PATIL & MALALI
ASSOCIATES)


AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KAMARIPETH P S HUBLI
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
                                       ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.V.M.BN\ANAKAR, ADDL.SPP)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN KAMARIPETH P S CRIME 22/2013 AND IN CC
                                 2




NO.1463/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C-II
COURT AT HUBLI DIST: DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 307 AND 436 OF IPC.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

A charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner

making allegations that on 6/4/2013 at about 5.30 pm, the

accused-petitioner went to the pan shop of the complainant

by name Mujpal Abdul Ajiz, with a bottle of petrol, he blowed

the petrol on the face of the complainant and lit the fire, due

to which the complainant has suffered 20-30% of burn

injures to his face and other parts of his body. In the

complaint, it is not stated what was the reason for the

accused to do that particular act. Whether there was any ill

will or hatred between the complainant and the accused.

The charge sheet papers also disclose that the injured was

admitted in the hospital and subsequently discharged. The

said certificate also shows that he suffered grievous injury.

There is absolutely no mention in the injury certificate that

the said injuries are fatal in nature. There is no life threat so
3

far as complainant is concerned. The petitioner was arrested

on 6/4/2013 and since then he has been in judicial custody.

He is no more required for any further interrogation,

investigation etc.

2. Under the above said circumstances, at this stage, it

is very difficult to draw an interference that he had any illicit

intention to kill the complainant as such. That has to be

established during the course of full dressed trial.

3. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the

case, it is just and necessary to release the petitioner on bail.

The trial Court has dismissed the petition on the ground that

the petitioner has suppressed before the Court, the rejection

of previous bail petition by the same Court. But, this

particular aspect may not be in straight jacket manner

attributed to the accused, because it is the duty of the

counsel who appear for the accused to ascertain what

happened to the previous bail petition. Under the above said

circumstances, that cannot be a ground to reject the bail

petition if he is otherwise entitled to.

4

Hence, the following order is passed:-

ORDER

Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby

allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on

bail subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a

sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for

the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal

Court / trial Court as the case may be.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the

investigation or tampering the prosecution

witnesses.

iii) He shall attend Committal / trial Court on all

future hearing dates unless prevented by any

genuine cause.

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of

the trial Court without prior permission of the
5

Court till the case registered against him is

disposed of.

SD/-

JUDGE
Vmb