MOHAMMED MECHANIC @ MOHAMMED KALIYA @ CHACHA S/O KOSSAM LAJPOCRIYA Vs. STATE REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is accused No. 3 roped along with other for the offences punishably under Section 302, 307 of the IPC and also under Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. He is in judicial custody. After securing his presence by issuing body warrant, he is in custody and seeks bail.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that one Moosa, a business man of Athinal Village Manikattu, Khangod Taluk was successful in business but was accused of being a smuggler. He had misunderstanding with Mohmed Bhai @Mohammed Ahmed Ummer Dossa (accused No. 1) who was based in Bombay and Mohmed Mazuna @ Musthafa (accused No. 2), who was based in Dubai. They conspired with Mohmed Mechanic @ Kaliya who is the petitioner to do away with his life. In furtherance of this conspiracy, it is alleged, when Moosa was travelling in his vehicle driven by complainant, the accused followed in another vehicle and fired and killed Moosa. On that basis the case was registered and during investigation except the petitioner other accused came to be arrested. By various orders of the Court they have been admitted to bail. It is seen that in Crl.P. 1224/92 Abdul Khayum, Fairoz Abdul Rahman Khan and Saleem ranked as Accused No. 6, 7 and 8 were granted anticipatory bail, despite charge being under Section 302 of IPC. Subsequently, Accused No. 1, 2 and 4 were admitted to bail. However, the petitioner was not traced. Later it was found that he was in judicial custody in Bombay, By issuance of body warrant his presence has been secured.

(3.) FROM the prosecution objection, it is noticed that his participation is shown as result of conspiracy with the other accused but no over tact in causing any injury to the person deceased or the complainant is attributed. The prosecution does not dispute that the two accused were granted bail and though the incident related to 1992 till the date prosecution has not secured any material. The other accused after securing bail appears to be absconding. From 1992 till now the case in question is only at the stage of framing of charge. In the circumstances, as there is no allegation against the petitioner that he had after registration of the case absconded like other accused nor there is allegation that he was with other accused when crime was committed nor of interfering with investigation and as he was in judicial custody when his presence was secured, as also because he is aged 70 years he will be entitled to benefit of liberal approach. Hence, the petition is allowed subject to the following conditions: