Allowed

Abdul Khader S/O Abdul Kunhi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2013CRL.P/3222/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving offences under relevant sections of IPC. The court set bail conditions including furnishing bond and restrictions on leaving jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with solvent surety; conditions of not leaving jurisdiction and not inducing witnesses imposed.

Abdul Khader S/O Abdul Kunhi Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3222 of 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Abdul Khader, Aged 29 years, Son of Abdul Kunhi, Residing at Kalladka House, Arka Post, Kodippady Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada – 574 201. …PETITIONER

¶9

(By Shri. Arun Shyam, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka through its Station House Officer, Puttur Town Police Station, Dakshina Kannada, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

(By Shri. Raja Subramanya Bhat, Government Pleader)

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.73 of 2013 of Puttur Town Police Station, Dakshina Kannada , for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶16

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is the

¶19

case of the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case as an accused and therefore, had approached the court below, seeking anticipatory bail along with others, who were also similarly placed. Though anticipatory bail was granted to all those petitioners, the petitioner was denied the same.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is on record that there was ill-will between the petitioner and a close associate of the complainant, who is the owner of a

¶21

¶22

quarry carrying on illegal blasting and that a case having been registered, out of sheer spite, it is alleged by the petitioner that the quarry owner had set up his driver to file a false complaint of the petitioner and others having attacked him, while he was going through the residential area of the petitioner. The court below having thought it fit to grant anticipatory bail to other accused, has rejected the petition of the present petitioner only on the ground that there was an allegation of an overt act against the petitioner, namely, that he had assaulted the complainant with a sword on his head, with an intention to commit murder.

¶23

It is now endorsed by the learned Government Pleader that though there was an injury in the quarrel that may have ensued, the complainant has been discharged and the injury was not of a very serious nature. Though the court below has also taken note of the fact that the complainant had been discharged from the hospital, on the footing that the petitioner was armed

¶24

¶25

with deadly weapons and had caused the injury, has refused to

¶26

grant bail.

¶27

Given the background and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to the relief. The petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in the event of

¶28

his arrest on furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned Police, as and when required. He shall not induce or threaten any prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without the permission of the Court.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Abdul Khader S/O Abdul Kunhi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Khader S/O Abdul Kunhi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Zareen Taj Vs the State of Karnataka

Yuvaraj @ Yuva Vs State by Peenya

Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Aleemuddin Shaikh Vs Smt Shazia Aleemuddin Shaikh

Mr.Shaik Zaheer Vs Mr.Sanaulla

Akram Vs State of Karnataka