LIYAKATALI @ IQBAL MAKHADUMSAHEB SUTUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.201108/2015. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5 before the Trial Court in the following circumstances: It is alleged by the complainant that on 08.11.2014 at 7.35 a.m. one Moheddeenpasha Murtuzasab Mushrif of Haveli Galli in Vijaypur had lodged a complaint alleging that his grand son one Moin Anees Shaikh had contested the elections to Youth Congress as against one Ashif accused No.1 and it transpires that accused No.1 had picked up quarrel with Moin and had fired with the gun on him. It transpires that the son -in - law of the complainant one Fayazuddin Mahaboobquadri Mushrif had lodged a police complaint against accused No.1 and his associates in that regard before the Golgumbaz Police Station and therefore it is alleged that accused No.1 had an axe to grind against Fayazuddin the son -in -law of the complainant and was threatening him that he would be done to death through contract killers whom he wanted to engage from Indi, Sindagi and Almel. It transpires that on 07.11.2014 at 11.20 p.m. after completing the prayers the complainant was standing along with Madassar Abdul Sammed Kureshi, Altaf Rajahmed Managuli, Fayazahmed Muhammad Iqbal Agasabal, Ayazuddin @ Baba Ganiyar, Kashif Abdulajeej Yadawad and Rafik Noorahmed Gour near the house of one Bhandari near the Datri Mosque at Vijaypur. At that time, he saw his son -in -law Fayazuddin coming on motor cycle and meanwhile two cars came from his behind and stopped near him and those cars had blocked the motor cycle and thereafter it is stated that accused Nos.1 to 9 along with four others had alighted from the cars and shot Fayazuddin at close range with country made pistol and he was fatally injured and even then the accused had kicked him and assaulted him with other weapons and thereafter the accused and others had fled from the scene in the cars on which they had come. It is stated that the complainant and others admitted the injured to hospital where he was referred to a larger hospital given his critical condition and he was declared as brought dead. It is thereafter a complaint was lodged and police had carried out investigation and the accused were charge sheeted.

(2.) In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was arrayed as accused No.5. It transpires that he is an Advocate by profession and he had represented accused No.1 in the case. It further transpires that he had sought anticipatory bail which was rejected and thereafter on the charge sheet being filed that the petitioner had again sought bail before the Court below which was rejected. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier and his petition was dismissed for default. It is the second attempt on the part of the petitioner in seeking bail.

(3.) It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner hails from a respectable family and he is practicing as an Advocate for the past 25 years. His only sin was having represented accused No.1 and therefore a false case has been foisted against him. There were no allegations of the present petitioner carrying any weapons and having assaulted the deceased, except the say of the complainant to the effect that the petitioner was one of the accused who had come in the car and had used pistol to shoot his son -in -law in the head.