Criminal Petition No. 1864 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7453 CRL.P No. 1864 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1864 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. S. NOORA AHAMMED, S/O KHAJA HUSEN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.04/172, R.C. NAGARA, MANTRALAYA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN CODE: 518001. (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Legal Reasoning
BY SUBRAMANYANAGARA POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU -560 001.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SMT. PUSHPALATHA B., ADDL. SPP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC (FILED UNDER SECTION 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL, WHO IN CR.NO.163/2021 RESPONDENT SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING ON LX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-61) AT BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120b, 364, 302, 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC. IS ACCUSED NO.2 FILE THE ON OF - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7453 CRL.P No. 1864 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This Court had earlier rejected the bail petition filed by this petitioner vide order dated 04.01.2022 in Crl.P.No.9869/2021 at the crime stage. However, liberty was given to the petitioner to approach this Court after filing of the charge-sheet. Now, the police have completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. 3. The main accusation made against this petitioner is that this petitioner entered into a mortgage with the victim and paid an amount of Rs.7 lakhs in respect of the site which was allotted to the victim. When the petitioner came to know about the further mortgage with C.W.46, he demanded money and the victim sought time and when she did not pay the amount, C.W.2 agreed to repay the amount and took time. When C.W.2 also did not pay the amount, this petitioner quarreled with him and at that time, accused No.1 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7453 CRL.P No. 1864 of 2025 came and pacified the issue and accused No.1 took C.W.2, accused No.2 and C.W.17 to the son of local MLA and the matter was compromised to pay an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to accused No.2 i.e., the petitioner herein and also to pay an amount of Rs.13,50,000/- to C.W.17. C.W.2 expressed that he has no money to pay the said amount and hence the petitioner and C.W.17 demanded to execute a document of site in respect of land bearing Sy.No.273/1 belonging to the C.W.2 and agreed to purchase 2 acres of land at the rate of Rs.26.5 lakhs in total to the tune of Rs.53 lakhs and instructed to adjust the amount of Rs.8,50,000/- payable to accused No.2 by the deceased victim and in that connection when the victim did not agree to make the signature, hatched up a plan to eliminate the victim and gave supari to accused Nos.3 and 4 and gave the vehicle belonging to him i.e., KA- 35-N-610 and sent accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 to Bengaluru. Accused Nos.3 and 4 secured the victim and took her to different places and mixed cyanide with the juice and made an attempt to commit the murder and also assaulted with stone on 26.03.2021 and when they were unsuccessful in committing the murder, again on 27.03.2021 took her to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7453 CRL.P No. 1864 of 2025 clinic of C.W.20 and provided the treatment and once again mixed cyanide capsules and took her to different places and committed the murder and snatched gold ornaments belonging to the deceased and body was disposed of near Huligemma Temple of Tungabhadra Dam near Toranagal at HLC (High Level Canal). The police registered the case and investigated the matter and collected the materials. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that in order to connect this petitioner, nothing is collected by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel contend that the allegation is only against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and in order to prove the conspiracy, no material is placed before the Court and the petitioner came to know about the incident of committing murder after 8 to 10 days of the incident. The learned counsel contend that the body is also not recovered and the case was registered after six months. The petitioner came to know about the death of the deceased through accused Nos.3 accused 4. The learned counsel contend that this petitioner is in custody from last 3 years and the trial is not yet commenced. The case is also - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7453 CRL.P No. 1864 of 2025 rest upon the circumstantial evidence and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP appearing for the respondent-State would contend that this petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing the bail petition and the same was rejected. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had collected the call details of this petitioner and other accused persons and he was in constant touch with the other accused persons. The learned counsel contend that to eliminate the victim, the petitioner only sent the accused persons by providing his car and as on this date also, the car stands in the name of the petitioner and the very contention of the petitioner that the car was taken only to get the signature of the victim cannot be believed. The learned counsel contend that the petitioner is behind eliminating the victim and he is the master mind and he only made all arrangements to eliminate the victim and even made the payment and now cannot contend that no material is collected against the petitioner herein. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7453 CRL.P No. 1864 of 2025 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, no doubt earlier this Court rejected the bail petition of this petitioner at the initial stage when the crime was registered. Now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed. It is not in dispute that the trial is not yet commenced. It is important to note that the main case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the master mind behind committing the murder of the victim and in order to connect this petitioner, material is also collected that earlier the victim had taken the money on the guise of executing the document of mortgage and there were two mortgages in respect of the very same property. The motive for committing the murder is that the victim did not join for executing the document and hence a plan was hatched. It is important to note that before committing the murder and as on the date of incident also, this petitioner was in constant touch with accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioner came to know about the murder only after 8 to 10 days of the incident when accused Nos.3 and 4 revealed and the said contention cannot be accepted and the same is a matter of trial and defence. In - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7453 CRL.P No. 1864 of 2025 order to connect this petitioner, materials are collected that there were transactions between the petitioner and the victim. The phone details clearly discloses that prior to the incident and after the incident, this petitioner was in constant touch with accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. The materials also disclose that accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 came to Bengaluru in the vehicle belonging to the petitioner and the petitioner also not disputes the fact that the vehicle not belongs to him. 7. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration and when there is a motive for committing the murder and when the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence, the Court has to look into the sound circumstances against the petitioner. The contention that this petitioner is not involved in any such act and the act is done by accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 only, cannot be accepted and the same is done at the instance of the petitioner and he is the master mind in eliminating the victim, who did not agree to execute the document and refused to sign the document. Hence, the very contention that no material is collected by the Investigating Officer to connect this petitioner cannot be accepted. Hence, I do not find any ground to exercise the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7453 CRL.P No. 1864 of 2025 discretion in favour of the petitioner when sound circumstances are against the petitioner and when there is a motive as well as car details are found and the car was provided by the petitioner to the other accused to commit the murder of the victim and the same is also done for wrongful gain. Hence, no grounds are made out. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The petition is rejected. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76