Allowed

Smt Abeda Begum v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2016CRL.P/3561/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed by two female accused under Section 439 CrPC. Despite their previous defaults, the petitioners were granted bail by imposing strict conditions prohibiting future absence and leaving jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail subject to self-bond of Rs.50,000, strict prohibition on absence, and condition that future default voids bail rights.

Smt Abeda Begum Vs the State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3561 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Abeda Begum W/o Babu Chouhan, Aged about 30 years, Coolie, Residents of Minath Nagar, Hubballi – 583 437.

¶9

Smt. Hussainbee W/o Hassan Sheik, Aged about 30 years, Coolie, Residents of Minath Nagar, Hubballi – 583 437.

¶10

… PETITIONERS

¶11

(Shri Jairaj K. Bukka, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The State of Karnataka By its Police Station, Janavada, Bidar District,

¶14

¶15

By its Represented by The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶16

(Shri Sheshadri Jaishankar, Government Pleader)

¶17

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.46/2013 of Janavada Police Station., Bidar for the offence Punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (c) of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned

¶21

Government Pleader.

¶22

The petitioners are women and are accused of offences

¶23

punishable under Section 20-b(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

¶24

NDPS Act’, for brevity).

¶25

¶26

It is alleged that the Janavada police had received credible information that ‘ganja’ was being transported from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra State and that the transport would go through Chillargi village, accordingly, the police had kept a watch at Bommagondeshwar Circle at Chillargi village. At about 11.15 a.m, on suspicion an auto-rickshaw bearing No.AP.23 X 5520 was intercepted and the inmates were apprehended and on a search in the auto-rickshaw, it was found to contain four bags of ‘ganja’ totally weighing 70 kilograms worth Rs.3,50,000/-. Accordingly,

¶27

the present petitioners were accused of transporting and being in possession of the said substance and a case has been registered against them.

¶28

The petitioners having obtained bail from the court below, had remained absent on more than one occasion. Therefore, nonbailable warrant having been issued and their presence secured, had again been enlarged on bail, but had again defaulted in appearance. Since the court below had refused bail, Accused No.1 had approached this Court by way of a criminal petition. The said

¶29

¶30

petition had been allowed and Accused No.1 was granted bail on 31.08.2015 on certain conditions and Accused No.1 was released on bail on 4.9.2015. Then again, Accused No.1 had absconded and had not appeared before the court below. It is in that background that the court below has now rejected the bail application of the Petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 has on the other hand, remained absent. Since both the accused are being tried together, the court below has refused bail to Accused No.2 as well.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner No.1 is the mother of three children, whereas Petitioner No.2 is the mother of one child. It is claimed that the absence of Petitioner No.1 was on account of the ill health of her children and she had to fend for herself in taking care of them and therefore, was not in a position to attend the court on the earlier occasion. Similar is the case of Petitioner No.2.

¶32

Having regard to the allegations against the accused and

¶33

the claim that their absence on the relevant dates of hearing before

¶34

¶35

the court below was on account of the ill health of their children, though the excuse put forth is not readily acceptable, given the fact that they are women and secondly, the basic allegation of the petitioners transporting ‘ganja’ in an auto-rickshaw would necessarily have to be established at the trial as to their involvement in such transportation, the petitioners are hereby granted bail on a firm condition that they shall not remain absent on any date of hearing without a good reason for exempting their appearance before the court below and that if they should default, the petitioners shall not be entitled for bail either before the Lower Court or before this Court.

¶36

With that condition, the petition is allowed and the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶37

The petitioners shall furnish self-bond each for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with a surety each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶38

¶39

The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court

¶40

below, without the leave of the court.

¶41

The petitioners shall offer all co-operation with the

¶42

Investigating authority

¶43

They shall not in any manner, seek to tamper with the

¶44

prosecution evidence.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Smt Abeda Begum v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Abeda Begum 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

Ramappa Nayak S/O Late Chandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramappa Nayak S/O Late Chandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramappa Nayak S/O Late Chandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs Mahadevi Vs the State of Karnataka

Hucchappa S/O Kalappa Rajan Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhimanna S/O Mahadevappa Meti Vs the State of Karnataka