1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5 th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11036/2013

BETWEEN:

1. Shri. Mustaq, Son of Mainuddin Fultambe Age: 27 years, Occupation: Carpenter Resident of Ambedkar Nagar, Taluk: Gokak, District:

2. Shri. Bilal, Son of Imamsab Kalloli Age: 27 years, Occupation: Mason Resident of Auti Galli, Gokak Taluk: Gokak, District: Belgaum

3. Shri. Sajid, Son of Shajan Shaik Age: 23 years, Occupation: Business Resident of Vivekanand Nagar, Gokak Taluk: Gokak, District: Belgaum …PETITIONERS (By Shri. A. G. Mulawadmath, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Through Gokak Town Police Station. …RESPONDENT (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Government Pleader) 2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Gokak Town Police Station Crime No.255/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

O R D E R

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

2. The petitioners are the accused along with others in

Crime No.255/2013 for offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with Section

149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The allegations are that, on 22.06.2013 at about

9.30 pm, the complainant one Nijalinga Kallappa Daddimani, of Gokak, was a goldsmith by profession, having a shop at

Ravivar peth, Gokak. There is an adjacent shop of one Arun

Salahalli, who is also a jeweller. One Sanju Sukumar

Chippalkatti, the cousin of Arun Salahalli was working in the 3

said shop. It is alleged that, one Amar Shaikh, who was a goldsmith had discontinued the business, but had again started the same. When he had discontinued the business, his workers had joined the shop of one Sadiq Shaikh. When

Amar Shaikh had restarted his business, the workers who were earlier working with him, came back to him, leaving the shop of Sadiq Shaikh. This made Sadiq Shaikh unhappy and therefore, there was a quarrel between Sadiq Shaikh and

Amar Shaikh, over the workers who had left him. Arun

Salahalli, who heard the commotion, tried to mediate and resolve the dispute between them, along with Sanju

Sukumar . On the same day, when the complainant was in the shop, the accused namely, Sadiq

Shaikh along with Shamiulla Jamakhandi, Bilal Imamsab

Kallolli, Mustaq Mainuddin Fultambe, Khajasab Niamat

Sulebhavi and some other Muslims, came armed with deadly weapons and attacked Sanju Chippalkatti. They assaulted him with iron rods and clubs and caused severe injuries. He 4

was admitted to Nimra Hospital at Gokak and later to

Lakeview Hospital, Belgaum.

4. It is in that background, that twenty persons including the present petitioner, were taken into custody.

The name of petitioner No.3 is not even mentioned in the complaint. However, all the three petitioners have been charge-sheeted, even though there are no overt acts alleged against petitioners 1 and 2 in the complaint.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that, all the accused have been enlarged on bail, except these petitioners, though the third petitioner was not even named in the complaint and there are no overt acts alleged against the petitioners 1 and 2, except that the injured has suffered head injuries and was admitted in hospital. There was no incriminating material produced insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. The Court below has taken a serious view of the incident only insofar as these petitioners are concerned, notwithstanding that the other accused have been enlarged on bail and on the basis 5

that the injured was still in the hospital. The learned

Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the injured has been discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger, and there is no justification in rejecting bail to these petitioners, while the other accused have been enlarged on bail.

6. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, seeks to justify the rejection of bail and seeks time to verify, whether the injured has been discharged from the hospital.

Though a discharge certificate is produced by the learned

Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader would submit that, there is no verification from the police and in spite of time having been granted earlier, the learned

Government Pleader seeks further time. There is no justification for further adjournments.

7. Given the above circumstances, the petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on bail. 6

The petition is allowed. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a self bond for a sum of

Rs.10,000/- each with a solvent surety each for a like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court.

2. The petitioners shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing.

3. The petitioners shall not influence or seek to threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

Sd/- JUDGE gab/-