K’taka High Court grants relief to Accused after nearly 3 years due to Failure of Witness testimony to provide Incriminating Evidence.
CASE TITLE – Salman Chirik v. State of Karnataka
CASE NUMBER – CP NO.3782 OF 2024
DATED ON – 14.05.2023
QUORUM – Justice H.P. Sandesh
FACTS OF THE CASE
This petition was a successive bail petition of the Petitioner, who is accused the No.3. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka earlier in Crl.P.No.9818/2021, in view of the filing of the charge sheet, granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court. The petitioner also approached this Court in Crl.P.No.7785/2022 and the same was rejected vide order dated 21.11.2022, on merits. The petitioner once again approached the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka by filing a fresh petition in Crl.P.No.2600/2023 and the Court rejected the same vide order dated 14.06.2023, but with liberty to approach this Court after examination of the eye-witnesses.
ISSUES
Whether the evidence on record against the Petitioner/Accused No.3, is adequate to deny bail.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injured witnesses, as well as the eye-witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court as P.W.1 to P.W.7 and none of them have supported the case of the prosecution and during the course of cross-examination also, nothing was elicited from their mouth and nothing is there to appreciate in the matter on merits. He also brought to light that the Accused No.1 in the same case, facing similar charges was enlarged on bail by this same Court vide order dated 29.07.2022, and stated that the Petitioner in turn had been in Custody for 2 years and 8 months. He further went on to mention that Accused Nos.5 and 7 and this Petitioner are in custody and other than this petitioner and accused Nos.5 and 7, all are on bail. The learned counsel argued that in view of the injured witnesses and eye-witnesses who have not supported the case of the prosecution, the Court has to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State submitted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner is different and the evidence on record is different. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka after hearing the arguments of both the parties, looked into the depositions of the injured witnesses and eye-witnesses. They stated P.W.1 to P.W.3, who have sustained injuries in the incident, though P.W.1 stated that when he went to pacify the Galata, he had sustained injuries on above the left eye, but he says that the accused persons were not there in the spot and his brother and Yasin were not subjected to assault by this petitioner. P.W.2 stated that someone had inflicted injury on his cheek and the said person is not before the Court. He was subjected to cross-examination and nothing had elicited from his mouth either. P.W.3 though says that he was also assaulted, none of the accused persons, who were present before the Court assaulted him and he had turned hostile. P.W.4 to P.W.7 are the eye-witnesses. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka stated that they have also not stated anything about the incriminating evidence about the petitioner herein and that when such being the material on record and when the eye-witnesses and the injured witnesses have been examined, in the absence of incriminating evidence, the petitioner is entitled for bail and the Criminal Petition was allowed, certain to some conditions, those being: (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao