NOORULLA SHARIFF Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioners. These petitions are considered together as the petitioners are accused in the same case. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 1981/2013 is accused no. 5 and the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 2945/2013 is accused no. 4. The background to the case is as follows: One Himanshu Purani was a business man from Delhi. It transpires that he was intending to do business in Bangalore and therefore, had contacted one Akhil -accused no and on his instructions, he had come to Bangalore on 12.12.2012 and had brought cash of Rs. 20,00,000/ - for the purposes of investing in business in chemicals. Akhil and his friend Saleem met him at the Airport and took him to Majestic area in a Van and from there, they took him to various places and finally to a house at Mangammanapalya on Hosur road. When they were discussing about the business, the friends of Saleem, the present petitioner -Noorulla Sharif and one Mujeeb suddenly appeared brandishing deadly weapons and started assaulting the complainant and took away cash that he was carrying and they confined him in the house till 5 p.m., the next day and further, it is alleged that Akhil and Saleem took him to Bangalore Airport, gave him a sum of Rs. 55,000/ - and told him to go back to Delhi without any complaint or protest or else he would be killed. It is claimed by the complainant that he quietly left for Delhi and returned 20 days later to lodge a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, the police are said to have recovered large sums of money, at the instance of accused nos. 1 and 2 from the possession of these petitioners apart from the other accused. Accused no. 6 Akhil the contact of the complainant in Bangalore, is at large and is yet to be arrested. It is in this background that the petitioners had approached the Court below seeking bail and the same has been rejected on the footing that the allegations against them are serious including the offence punishable under Section 395 and since large amounts have been recovered from them, petitioners have not made out a case for enlargement on bail and has rejected the same.

(2.) ONE of the accused, namely, Mujheeb, having approached this Court in Criminal Petition No. 3018/2013, who was similarly placed as the present petitioners, this Court had rejected his bail petition by an order dated 29.05.2013 while observing that the sequence of events as narrated by the complainant that he quietly flew back to Delhi after being assaulted and confined to a room by the accused and they having snatched a large amount of cash from him and the complainant having come back after 20 days is something which is not believable and he would have to explain the same. This Court had also observed that the complainant having carried a large sum of cash through two Airports to reach Bangalore without being questioned about the large amount of cash that he was carrying, was also a circumstance which requires to be explained and however, this Court opined that the reasoning of the Court below in rejecting the bail petition could not be faulted and accordingly, had rejected the bail petition.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 2945/2013 would reiterate the arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 1981/2013 and would add that his wife and elder daughter have met with a motor accident and are languishing in Hospital and the younger daughter is required to be admitted to school. These circumstances, however are all irrelevant for the purposes of considering the bail petition. In any event, notwithstanding that this Court has reluctantly rejected the bail petition of Mujheeb, the present petitioners have made out a case having due regard to the sequence of events of the complainant's case weighed against the evidence that is placed as against these petitioners. The petitioners not having been identified by the complainant and the petitioners being implicated on the voluntary statement of accused 1 and 2 and the main accused Akhil, who is said to have been the contact of the complainant, being at large would not establish a prima facie case against the petitioners merely on the recovery of cash from the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on bail. In the result, the petitions are allowed. The following order is passed: ORDER