The LXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Court in Bengaluru has allowed the bail application of Mubarak, identified as Accused No. 1, in a decade-old murder and evidence destruction case. The order, passed by Judge Shri Hemanth Kumar C.R. on June 28, 2022, permits the release of the accused who had been recently re-arrested following the execution of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW).
The case, registered as Crime No. 184/2012 by the Shivajinagar Police and later committed for trial as SC No. 305/2013, involves serious charges under Sections 302 (Murder) and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The 2012 Shivajinagar Murder Case
The prosecution’s case dates back to October 12, 2012. According to the complaint filed by Sri N.S. Siddappa, the accused persons—Mubarak and two others—allegedly conspired to kill and rob Mohammed Arafath Shariff due to an old grudge. The incident took place in front of the Rado Industrial Works Factory Shed at the Hajarath Kambal Dargha compound in Shivajinagar.
The complaint alleges a brutal sequence of events: Accused No. 3 purportedly assaulted the victim with his hands, while Mubarak (Accused No. 1) allegedly stabbed Shariff with a knife, leading to his death. Subsequently, Accused No. 2 is alleged to have assisted in robbing the deceased. To destroy evidence, the trio allegedly transported the body on a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle and discarded it on the railway tracks between Channasandra and K.R. Puram stations, where a passing train ran over the body to make the death appear accidental.
Legal Journey and Recent Arrest
Mubarak was initially arrested following the incident and remained in judicial custody for a significant period. He was eventually granted bail by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in 2013. However, during the course of the ongoing trial (SC No. 305/2013), the accused failed to appear before the Sessions Court.
This absence led the court to issue a Non-Bailable Warrant against him. The police successfully executed the warrant, resulting in Mubarak’s re-arrest and subsequent remand to judicial custody. Seeking his release, the petitioner moved the court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
Arguments for and Against Bail
Advocate Sri ANP, representing Mubarak, argued that his client is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The defense emphasized that Mubarak had been regularly appearing for the trial previously and that his recent absence was due to ill health and a lack of communication with his legal counsel. They further argued that since the investigation was completed years ago and the charge sheet was already filed, his custodial interrogation was no longer necessary.
The Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, labeling Mubarak as a habitual offender and a “rowdy sheeter” with multiple cases pending against him in various police stations. The prosecution argued that as the trial had already commenced and witnesses were being summoned, releasing a person with a history of absconding would hamper the justice process and pose a threat to prosecution witnesses.
Court’s Findings and Decision
Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R., after perusing the records, noted that while the charges are grave, the accused had already been granted bail by a higher court previously. The court acknowledged the petitioner’s residence in Ashwathnagar and his undertaking to abide by court conditions.
The judge observed that the primary reason for the current custody was the failure to appear, rather than new evidence. The court held that the apprehension of the prosecution regarding the accused absconding again could be mitigated by imposing stringent conditions rather than continued detention. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s guilt or innocence is a matter for the trial to decide based on evidence.
Terms of Release
The court allowed the petition and ordered Mubarak to be released on bail subject to a personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with two sureties of the like sum. The release is governed by several strict conditions:
- The petitioner must appear before the court on every date of hearing without fail.
- The petitioner is strictly prohibited from involving himself in any further criminal activities.
- The petitioner must not tamper with evidence or attempt to threaten, induce, or allure prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- The court warned that any violation of these conditions would lead to the immediate cancellation of the bail.
With this order, Mubarak returns to bail status as the trial into the 2012 murder case continues in the Bengaluru Sessions Court.