Allowed

Sri M M Ibrahim v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2016WP/47141/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order refusing to remove a condition requiring an accused with anticipatory bail to apply for regular bail. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held such a condition unconstitutional and quashed the lower court's order.

What did the court decide?

The order of the court below refusing to modify the earlier order is quashed, and the anticipatory bail is granted without condition no.2.

Sri M M Ibrahim Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.47141 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. M.M.Ibrahim, Son of M. Moideen Kunhi, Aged about 37 years, Residing at Shalimar House, Mangalanthi Post, Manjanady, Mangalore – 575 001. …PETITIONER (By Shri Srinivas V., Advocate for Shri Rahul Rai K., Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Through Konaje Police Station, Dakshina Kannada, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (By Shri S. Vishwa Murthy, Government Pleader)

¶9

¶10

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the condition no.2 imposed by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore by vide order dated 30.4.2016 in Cr.Misc.Petn.391/2016 (in page 5) vide Annexure-A and etc;

¶11

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶14

learned Government Pleader.

¶15

The petitioner was accused of offences punishable

¶16

under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sections 4(1A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Rules 42, 43 and 44 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. The petitioner was arrayed as accused no.5. It transpires that the petitioner had approached the court below seeking anticipatory bail. The court below was pleased

¶17

¶18

to grant anticipatory bail, but had imposed a condition that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned court and seek regular bail in due course. The petitioner had applied for modification of the said condition which has been rejected. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that it is a settled legal position by the Supreme Court in more than one judgment that if a court once grants anticipatory bail for a limited period, it cannot direct the accused to surrender and apply for regular bail, as it would be contrary to the spirit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and would also amount to depravation of his personal liberty.

¶20

In view of the settled legal position as laid down by

¶21

the apex court, the petition is allowed. The order of the court below refusing to modify the earlier order dated 30.4.2016 by a latter order dated 18.6.2016 is quashed. It is made clear that the

¶22

¶23

anticipatory bail granted in the first instance shall not carry

¶24

condition no.2, as imposed by the court below.

¶25

The petition stands disposed of.

¶26

Sd/- JUDGE

¶27

Sri M M Ibrahim v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M M Ibrahim 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

Sri Krishnappa Vs Sri Ramachandra Babu

Shashidhar M. Solapur Vs K. Javaregowda

Sri Ajith Nayak Vs Smt Shreelatha Nayak

M. Muniraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Usha R Patwari Vs the Karnataka Lokayuktha

Sumit Kumar Vs State of Karnataka