LAWS(KAR)-2012-12-45

GHANI @ ABDUL GHANI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On December 05, 2012
Ghani @ Abdul Ghani Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER arraigned as accused No.8 in Crime No.118/2011 of Hunsur Town Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201 r/w. 34 IPC was arrested on 3.2.2012 at Delhi and later, he was subjected to judicial custody. His application filed for grant of bail before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Therefore, he is before this Court. Even before the arrest of this petitioner, the Investigating Officer had filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences against 18 accused persons showing this petitioner as absconding.

(2.) THE petition is opposed by the respondent-state. Heard both the sides and perused the voluminous records produced before the Court.

(3.) PERUSAL of voluminous records submitted along with the charge sheet would indicate that the prosecution in order to, prima facie connect this petitioner to the crime, relies heavily on the statement said to have been made by the co-accused about the complicity of this petitioner in the crime alleged. Even according to the prosecution, after the arrest of this petitioner, except seizing a mobile hand set belonging to him, no other incriminating material has been recovered either from his possession or at his instance. Even according to the materials produced before the Court, though this petitioner was arrested on 3.2.2012, till today, no steps have been taken to conduct test identification parade. According to the prosecution, CWs.83 and 84 are the eye witnesses to the incident of abduction from near the college. According to the statements of CWs.83 and 84, both the assailants and victims were strangers to them. The materials produced along with the charge sheet would indicate that after the arrest of accused 2 to 6, Test identification parade was conducted wherein, CWs.83 and 84 identified accused 4 and 7 as the two assailants. Test identification parade was stated to have been conducted much prior to the arrest of this petitioner. In spite of the same, it is alleged in the charge sheet that accused 2 to 4 and 7 to 9 have been identified by witnesses namely, CWs.81, 83 and 84 in the Test identification parade conducted by Taluka Executive Magistrate ­ CW.120. It is not forthcoming as to on what basis, such an allegation about the identification of this petitioner in the so called test identification parade has been stated in the charge sheet. Be that as it may at this stage, I find no prima facie incriminating materials to connect this petitioner to the crime alleged. On the basis of the so called statement of the co-accused, this Court cannot come to a prima facie conclusion that this petitioner was also involved in the crime alleged. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that this petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.