ZAMRU Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is A -6, preferred the present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking release in the event of his arrest in Crime No.66 of 2015 of Bahadurpura Police Station, Hyderabad, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 201, 212 read with 149 and 120 -B IPC and under Section 25(1)(b) of the Indian Arms Act.

(2.) THE case of prosecution is as under : On 16.03.2015 at about 9.00 a.m., the Inspector of Police, Bahadurpura P.S., Hyderabad, received a report from Sri Syed Hyder Hussain stating that on that day at about 7.00 a.m., he received a phone call from a Cell No.8801943937 (Mohsin) wherein he was informed that one Asad Bhai has been murdered near state Kanta, Mir Alam lake road. Immediately, he rushed to the spot and found his brother Syed Nisar Hussain @ Asad was lying in a pool of blood and was dead. His head was badly cut and injuries were noticed on left hand, and right thumb finger was also severed. According to him about 15 days back Wadood, Ibrahim and others stopped the deceased at Tadbun x road and discussed on some matter and he noticed his brother abusing Ibrahim. It is alleged that his brother left the place informed the informant about the incident. Hence, he doubts the participation of one Murtuza, who is a Rowdy sheeter of Rajendra nagar P.S., and Wadood, Ibrahim and Hameed as responsible for that incident, as his brother was having enmity with them. Basing on the report a case in Crime No.66 of 2015 came to be registered by L.W.17. Since this being a grave offence, the investigation was immediately handedover to L.W.18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even accepting the allegations in the report to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioner. According to him, that the informant who gave the report is not an eyewitness to the incident and his suspicion was against the persons who are not shown as accused in the remand report of other accused. He further submits that even otherwise the entire case is based on the confession of A -2, which is inadmissible in evidence.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending that the case is still at the stage of investigation and it is pre -matured to say that there is no material against the petitioner. He submits that at this stage the Court cannot ignore the confession of A -2 and the relevancy of confession of an accused while dealing with an application for anticipatory bail is no more res -integra in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in State through C.B.I. V. Amarmani Tripathy wherein it is held that the confession of co -accused can also be a basis for holding prima facie accusation against the accused for negating bail in rejecting the contention contra.