IQLAQ KHURESHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner - accused No.17, is before this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C.No.305/2021, pending before the LXI Additional City Civil Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 302 , 120B r/w. 34 of the IPC and Ss. 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(2.) Heard Sri Bhargava D. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

(3.) Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows: A crime comes to be registered on 15/2/2007, against an unknown persons for offences punishable under Ss. 120B , 302 and 506B of the IPC r/w. Ss. 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The police after investigation file a charge sheet against all the accused including the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner herein, who is accused No.17 is identical to the charges against accused No.14 and the charge against both these accused Nos.14 and 17 are of, possessing of arms without license, which would become offences under Ss. 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. The concerned Court in S.C.No.18/2009, after a full blown trial, by its order dtd. 23/1/2016, acquits few of the accused, who are accused Nos.6, 7, 9 to 15 and the case against accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 16, 17 and 18 is split up on the score that those accused were not available for trial at the relevant point in time. The trial is now sought to be continued against the petitioner in S.C.No.305/2021 and pursuant to the registration of the same, the petitioner is taken into custody on 8/8/2020 and remains in custody even as on date. The petitioner has now knocked the doors of this Court claming parity insofar as it relates to accused No.14, who has been acquitted pursuant to the aforesaid order in S.C.No.18/2009, on the ground that the allegation against the petitioner and accused No.14 are not identical, but same as they are charged of the afore-quoted offences as both of them did possess unlicensed arms. The other acquittal in the order that is passed is qua accused No.9 who is alleged to have committed the Act of murder holding that the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the guilt against accused No.9, beyond all reasonable doubt. It is on these circumstances, claiming parity, the petitioner is before this Court.