While displaying zero tolerance for those who commit crime, the Karnataka High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Sadik Khan @ Sadik vs State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 4834 of 2022 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 241 pronounced as recently as on June 22, 2022 while denying bail to two murder accused minced just no words to unambiguously hold that, “When petitioners have committed brutal murder of one person they cannot seek bail to save life of another person i.e. their father.” The Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice K Natarajan who delivered this notable judgment said so while denying relief to two brothers named Sadik Khan and Adil Khan who are in custody for almost one and a half years and sought release to look after their ailing father. The Bench also minced no words to hold in simple, straight and suave language that, “Merely stating that amount of Rs 5 to 6 lakhs required that itself is not a ground for grant of bail to these petitioners to save the life of their father as they have committed murder and taken life of a innocent person. Life is important to everybody not only to the accused. But also to the victim family.” Very rightly so!
To start with, this concise, commendable, cogent, composed and creditworthy judgment authored by a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice K Natarajan of Karnataka High Court at Dharwad Bench sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’, for short) for granting bail in respect of Crime No.20/2021 of Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 143, 144, 148, 302 r/w section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for short) pending in SC.No.160/2021 on the file of IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.”
Needless to say, the Bench then observes in para 2 that, “Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.”
While dwelling on the prosecution case, the Bench then states succinctly in para 3 that, “The case of the prosecution is that one Akram Pasha, brother of deceased Syed Afzal has filed complaint to the Police on 01.02.2021 alleging that when complainant was at Mahalakshmipura, he received information from his brother Syed Irfan about the assault on his another brother Syed Afzal by unknown persons. Complainant rushed to the spot and on enquiry with his brother by name Irfan who is eye witness to the incident. He told that accused persons committed murder of the deceased. After filing complaint, during investigation police arrested the petitioners/accused on 04.01.2021 and remanded to judicial custody. Petitioners approached IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru and the same came to be rejected. Hence, petitioners/accused approached this court seeking bail in Crl.P.No.7440/2021 dated 12.11.2021 and the same came to be rejected. Now, petitioners are before this Court on the changed circumstances.”
While dwelling on the petitioner’s version, the Bench then lays bare in para 4 that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the co-accused persons were granted with bail by coordinate bench of this Court except these petitioners. Present petitioners are in custody for almost one and half year. The trial not yet began. Charge sheet material reveals that accused no.4 who has been granted bail by co-ordinate bench of this court also assaulted on the head of the deceased with iron rod. Therefore, accused no.3 also entitled for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The father of the accused no.1 is also the father of accused no.3 is suffering from health ailment. Now there are no one there to look after their father. Their presence is very much essential for their father. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.”
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 5 that, “Per contra, learned HCGP seriously objected the successive bail petition and submits that there are no changed circumstances and additional grounds for grant of bail to accused persons. This court has already taken these grounds in detail in earlier occasion and dismissed the petitioner. Hence, prays to reject the bail petition.”
Finally and far most significantly, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 6 that, “Having heard the arguments, perused the records which reveals that especially the order of this Court while rejecting the bail petition of Afzal at para-6 of the order where it was held that there are eye witnesses to the incident. Statement of eye witnesses and statement recorded under 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., they all stated that accused persons committed murder. The alleged overt act against petitioner/accused no.1 is he has assaulted the deceased on his head with knife. Thereafter, he has dumped stone on the head of the deceased. Accused no.3 who is said to be brother of accused no.1 who also took a salike and caused injury on the head of deceased. Of-course, accused no.4 also said to be assaulted subsequently with iron road. But, deceased was died due to skull fracture and intracranial hemorrhage as a result of blunt and sharp force injury sustained to head. This court also considered the evidence collected during test identification parade where injured eye witnesses identified and told about the overt act of these accused. Considering all these grounds earlier this court has rejected the bail petition. Now, learned counsel submits that father of the accused persons is in dangerous condition, he has produced some medical documents where some New Janapriya private hospital has given report stating that one Ayub Khan was diagnosed with Bullous Lung disease and underwent multiple intercostals drainage procedure. Now, he is having unstable angina with mild LV dysfunction. He needs Coronary Angiogram and PTCA with IABP as early as possible to save his life. The approximate cost of the procedure is 5 to 6 lakhs. Except this document, no other document is produced by the petitioners to show that he has taken treatment in any other hospital and he has not gone to the Jayadeva Cardiology Specialty Government Hospital. Merely stating that amount of Rs.5 to 6 lakhs required that itself is not a ground for grant of bail to these petitioners. To save the life of their father as they have committed murder and taken life of a innocent person. Life is important to everybody not only to the accused. But also to the victim family. Therefore, when petitioners have committed brutal murder of one person they cannot seek bail to save life of another person i.e. their father. That apart, there are no additional grounds made out for release them on bail. Therefore, I pass the following:
ORDER
Bail petition filed by the accused nos.1 and 3 is hereby dismissed.
Trial court is directed to speed up the trial and dispose the case as early as possible.”
All said and done, we thus see that the bottom-line of this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment is that the Karnataka High Court has made it pretty clear that those who commit heinous crimes like the brutal murder of a person as we see in this noteworthy case then such accused cannot seek bail to save their ailing father’s life as the accused failed to produce the adequate documents in their support to justify what they so strenuously claimed. It cannot be lightly dismissed that the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice K Natarajan of Karnataka High Court noted specifically that even though the accused claimed that now their father is in “dangerous condition” and they require approximately 6 lakh rupees for his treatment, yet, “Except this document, no other document is produced by the petitioners to show that he has taken treatment in any other hospital and he has not gone to the Jayadeva Cardiology Speciality Government Hospital.” This clearly served to expose the hollowness of their specious claims pertaining to their seeking bail to help arrange financial aid for their ailing father.
Of course, we thus see quite clearly that the Karnataka High Court was just not convinced of the merits of the plea of the petitioners that their father requires prompt treatment in which a huge expenditure would be incurred. The petitioners failed to list out any additional grounds for their seeking bail as a matter of necessity. As an inevitable fallout of the Court not being convinced at all by what the petitioners were claiming, we thus see that their bail petition thus on prima facie grounds stood dismissed. What went most against the petitioners was that they miserably failed to produce any document to prove that their father had taken treatment in any other hospital and most of all had not even gone to the Jayadeva Cardiology Specialty Government Hospital. So it is thus no wonder that the Karnataka High Court as we see was ultimately left with no option but to dismiss their petition of bail! There can be just no denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi