1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200948/2014
Between:
Bablu @ Bablya @ Jameel Patel
S/o Abdul Khadar
Age: 19 years, Occ: Paint work
R/o Vishal Nagar, Tarfile
Gulbarga
Petitioner
(By Sri Mallinath Astagi, Advocate)
And:
The State Through
Rural Police Station, Gulbarga
Respondent
(By Sri S.S. Aspalli, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petition and enlarge the
accused petitioner on bail in Crime No.44/2009 in Split Up
C.C.2561/2009 of Grameen Police Station Gulbarga, for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201 r/w
Section 149 IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:

ORDER
Petitioner

is

arrayed

as

accused

No.6

in

S.C.No.280/2009 on the file of the I-Additional Sessions

Judge, Kalaburagi.

It appears, totally six accused

persons are there in the said case.

The Police have

submitted split up charge sheet against accused No.6

showing him as absconding accused.

The offences

alleged against the petitioner and other accused are

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 364, 302 and 201
r/w Section 149 of IPC.

2. The trial was held against accused Nos.1 to 5

and

ultimately,

I-Additional

District

and

Sessions

Judge, Kalaburagi, concluded the trial and convicted

accused

No.1

for

the

offences

punishable

under

Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and acquitted accused

Nos.2 to 5.

The State ahs not challenged the said

judgment of acquittal of accused Nos.2 to 5.

3. The brief factual matrix of the case are:

One Shankar of Kalaburagi was the elder brother
of the complainant by name Krishna. The said Shankar
was doing business of selling tea in the moving train
between Kalaburagi and Ganagapur Station.

It is

alleged that the said Shankar started selling some

eatables also in the train, the accused persons who were
also in the same business objecting the said Shankar
from doing other business other than selling tea. In this
background, it is alleged that on 16.02.2009 there was
a quarrel between the deceased and the accused
persons. The deceased-Shankar did not return to the
house on that night. Thereafter, the complainant came
to know that the said Shankar was murdered near
Savalagi cross and the dead body was shifted to the
hospital.

On coming to know about the death, he

lodged the complaint suspecting the hands of accused

Nos.1 to 6 in this regard.

The police after due

investigation submitted charge sheet. It is worth to note

here that charges framed against the accused persons

shows that accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 6
have committed the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 201 of IPC.

The learned Sessions Judge on

evaluating the entire evidence on record came to the

conclusion that accused No.1 is the person who was
nurturing some ill-will and hatred against the deceased
and the evidence recorded only implicated accused No.1
to the alleged crime and no materials are available in
order to implicate accused Nos.2 to 6. As accused No.6
was not available for trial, the Trial Court has acquitted
accused Nos.2 to 5. Therefore, as rightly contended by
the learned counsel, no better evidence can be available
against accused No.6 as available against accused Nos.2
to 5.

4.

Looking

to

the

above

said

fact

and

circumstances, when the other accused persons who

are standing on the same footing as that of the

petitioner are already acquitted by the Trial Court, it

cannot be said that there is prima facie unbeatable case
against accused No.6.

However, the prosecution is at

liberty to establish its case against accused No.6 if

advised before the Trial Court.

There is no reason for

this Court to order for detaining the accused till the

disposal of the said case. The records also disclose that
on 06.09.2014 petitioner voluntarily surrendered before
the Trial Court and represented through counsel by
filing an application.

The Trial Court has rejected his

bail petition only on the ground that he was absconding

through out and if he is granted with bail, he will not be
available to the trial. When other accused persons have
already been acquitted, in my opinion, an opportunity
should be given to the petitioner/accused to mend his
conduct.

As the conduct of the accused as on today

shows that he voluntarily surrendered before the Court

and subjected himself before the jurisdiction of the
Court, in my opinion, at this stage, it cannot be

imagined that he will flew away from justice without

facing the trial.

Therefore, it is just and necessary to

enlarge the petitioner on bail on certain conditions.

5. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER
The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is
allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released
on bail in connection with C.C.No.2561/2009 pending
on the file of V-Additional JMFC, Kalaburagi, subject to
following conditions:

i)

The petitioner shall execute a personal

bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees
One

Lakh

sureties

Only)

for

with

the

two

likesum

solvent
to

the

satisfaction of the Committal Court.

ii)

The

petitioner

shall

not

indulge

in

tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii)

The petitioner shall appear before the

Committal Court and the Trial Court on

all the future hearing dates unless

prevented by any genuine cause.
iv)

The

petitioner

shall

not

leave

the

jurisdiction of the Trial Court without its

prior permission, till the disposal of the
case on merits.

Sd/JUDGE

NB*