Allowed

Sri Nayaz @ Nayaz Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2014CRL.P/6810/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail for an accused who had jumped bail previously, re-arrested, and served in custody for over six months during trial for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. Bail was granted with stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon executing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with one solvent surety, undertaking weekly police appearance and other conditions.

Sri Nayaz @ Nayaz Pasha Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

1 Crl.P 6810/14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE CRIMINAL PETITION No.6810 OF 2014

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI NAYAZ @ NAYAZ PASHA S/O ILIYAS, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT NO.184, 1^ST CROSS, ILIYAS NAGAR, MOSQUE ROAD, KUMAR SWAMY LAYOUT, BANGALORE.

¶7

... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI: AKRAM PASHA K, ADV)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, REPTD., BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI:K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶13

Crl.P 6810/14

¶14

¶15

THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER WHO ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2 IN S.C.NO.309/2013 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 399, 402 OF IPC OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, FTC-V AT BANGALORE.

¶16

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court for

¶19

grant of bail for having been taken to custody while he was on bail during the trial.

¶20

The facts reveal that the petitioner

¶21

was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. On the arrest, he was in custody and he was granted bail by the Court below. He jumped the bail on 23.12.2013. The Court below issued warrant for his production. Ultimately, on 19.06.2014, he was produced before the Court. He requested for bail. His request was rejected by the Court below. Therefore, he has approached this Court for grant of bail.

¶22

Crl.P 6810/14

¶23

¶24

Heard the learned Counsel for both the

¶25

parties.

¶26

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that his absence is only for few months and that by imposing stringent conditions, the petitioner may be released on bail. He has also filed a memo stating that till conclusion of trial, the petitioner undertakes to appear before the police station.

¶27

Learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail application.

¶28

It is not in dispute that the

¶29

petitioner was on bail. Some of the accused have been granted bail by the Court below. The petitioner jumped the bail for few months. Anyhow, he has been secured and he is in custody since for the last morethan 6 months. Petitioner has undertaken to appear before the police station till the conclusion of trial. So taking into

¶30

Crl.P 6810/14

¶31

¶32

consideration the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where bail has to be considered by imposing stringent conditions.

¶33

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of Court below, with further following conditions:

¶34

a) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before Subramanya Police Station once in a week on every Sunday inbetween 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till conclusion of the trial.

¶35

b) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶36

c) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

¶37

5 Crl.P 6810/14

¶38

disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶39

c) He shall attend the Court as and when directed.

¶40

d) He shall not involve in any such criminal activities.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

*bgn/-

Sri Nayaz @ Nayaz Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nayaz @ Nayaz Pasha v. 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

Gurudath Vs State of Karanataka

Sunilkumar @ Gopi Vs State by Kadugodi Police

Mrs Vishalakshi Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Shraddha Vs State by Mangalore South Police Station

Sri Bande Manja @ H S Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

A P Sreedhar Vs the State of Karnataka by