AYAZ AHMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5 along with several other accused in the following background: The Kudur Police has registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and of the several accused arrested, accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 were produced before the Magistrate, who have been remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, on their bail application, the Court below has opined that though the present petitioner's name was not found in the First Information Report, the other accused had been arrested and on the voluntary statement of accused No.1, the present petitioner has also been named. It is by virtue of which, he is arrayed as one of the accused and he was arrested later on the basis of the said statement.

(3.) The Court below has held that, notwithstanding this circumstance, since the gruesome murder has occurred in broad day light at about 9.15 a.m. in a public place, a serious view would have to be taken against each and every accused, who are named and therefore, non -inclusion of the petitioner's name at the first instance is of little significance. When, accused No.1 has revealed the name of the present petitioner, it would be sufficient to hold that there is a prima facie material against the petitioner. This approach would result in a miscarriage of justice. The petitioner's name not having been found in the First Information Report, subsequent inclusion on the basis of voluntary statement of accused No.1. Further, the other accused Nos. 6, 8 and 9 having been enlarged on bail, the present petitioner, whose involvement is doubtful being incarcerated indefinitely would result in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, a case for bail has been made out to enlarge the petitioner on bail.