IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DFIARWAD DATED TEllS THE 1711 DAY OF JANUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.10007/2011 C/w CRIMINAL PETITION No.12021/2010 In Crl.P.No.10007/201 1 BETWEEN: Mehaboobaali, S/o. Husainsab Nadaf, Age: Major, 0cc: Agriculture, Rio. Kusugal, Tal: Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. . . . Petitioner (By Shri. R.B.Contractor, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka. By State Public Prosecutor, By Rural Police Hubli. .. . Respondent (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, GP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to enlarge the petitioner — accused No.3 on bail in Hubli Rural P.S. Crime No.335/2009 S.C.No.149/2010 which is registered punishable under Section 143, 148, 147, 307, 302, 504 of Indian Penal Code. In Crl.P.No.12021/2010 BETWEEN: Rajesab, Sb. Maktumsab Nadaf, Age: 22 years. 0cc: Agriculture, Rio. Kusugal, Tq: Hubli, Dist: Dharwad. . . . Petitioner (By Shri R.B.Contractor, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka, By State Public Prosecutor. . . . Respondent ( hr;. olc &. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to enlarge the petitioner accused No.7 on bail in Hubli Rural P.S. Crime No.335/2009 (S.C.No.149/2010) which is registered punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 302, 507, 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code. These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER These petitions are heard together since the petitioners are accused in the same incident. 2. The case briefly stated is as follows: That one Mohammed Yusuf, had filed a complaint to state that the house of Hazaratsab Peersab Nadaf is situated near the house of the petitioners and other accused are resident of Kusugal village of Hubli Taluk. It is stated that there was animosity on account of the complainant being familiar with one Baby and which was not to the liking of the accused. Therefore, owing to the strained relationship of the family of the accused, it is alleged that on 11.12.2009, that when the complainant and his uncle along with others had installed a speaker on the roof of their house and were playing ‘Kolata’, in celebration of Moharum and they were also singing, which was also broad cast. It is alleged that they objected the sound being too loud and had pelted stones and abused the complainant and others for broad casting songs and music and proceeded to remove and thrown the speaker on the ground. This angered the complainant and others and they questioned the accused as to why they damaged the speaker, at that time the petitioners are said to have abused the complainants and others and attacked the complainant and his uncle with wooden clubs. By virtue of the alleged attack, it is stated that the uncle and the complainant had suffered a head injury and succumbed to the same. 4 3. On the allegation of the above sequence of events, a case was initiated against the petitioners and others before the Hubli Rural Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and the Police after investigation have also filed a charge sheet against the petitioners. It is in this background, that the said accused and the petitioners had approached this Court for grant of bail not once, but twice. On both occasions, though some petitioners were granted bail on the ground that overt acts were alleged against the petitioners. It is in this background, that the present petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would take this Court through the complaint to indicate that the complaint nowhere alleges that the petitioners inflicted injuries on the complainant and his uncle. This glaring fact was not brought to the contention ofthis Court on both the earlier occasions in the petitions filed before this Court. Therefore, the earlier rejection of the petitions by this Court, does not render the present S 5 petition bad in law. As there is a glaring circumstance, which was not brought to the attention ofthe Court. 5. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand, would raise serious objections and had also filed statement of objections to reiterate that the petitioners’ bail earlier has been soundly rejected by this Court, on the ground that there were direct allegations and there is no changed circumstance made out But the learned Govenunent Pleader being called upon to point out the statements in the complaint alleging any overt acts against the petitioners, is not in a position to justify the same. Therefore, notwithstanding that the earlier petitions came be rejected by this Court on the ground there are direct allegations. The petitioners are enlarged on bail on a parity of reasoning that the other accused against whom general allegations were made was enlarged on bail. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed subject to the following conditions: 1) They shall furnish personal bonds for a sum of ?20,000/- each, with two solvent sureties £ r 6 for like sums, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2) They shall make themselves available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation. 3) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court. 4) They shall not seek to induce or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 5) The petitioner shall approach the trial Court for regular bail within a period of eight weeks. With those conditions the petitions are allowed. sal Rsh 3UDG