Allowed

Sri. Shabazali S/O Sayyadali Sayyed v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jun 2018CRL.P/100985/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the fifth accused in a robbery case involving IPC Sections 395 and 397, allowing his release subject to specific bond and reporting conditions despite objections regarding the offence's gravity.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties and complying with other stated conditions.

Sri. Shabazali S/O Sayyadali Sayyed Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

CRL.P.No.100985/2018

¶2

: 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100985/2018

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI. SHABAZALI S/O SAYYADALI SAYYED AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, R/O: SONIA GANDHI NAGAR, HOUSE NO.856 HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.M.KUSUMAKAR, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KESHWAPUR P.S. HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.

¶14

... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 IN S.C. NO.103/2017 (CRIME NO.172/2016 KESHWAPUR P.S. HUBBALLI) ON THE FILE 1^ST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 395, 397.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.P.No.100985/2018

: 2 :

ORDER

The present petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his enlargement on regular bail in Crime No.172/2016 of respondent Keshwapur Police Station, Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC.

¶21

The summary of the case of prosecution as could be gathered from the materials placed before this Court is that the complainant by name Navin David lodged a complaint on 29.10.2016 before the respondent Police alleging that on 25.10.2016 at about 00:30 hours, the present petitioner (accused No.5) took him in his auto rickshaw stating that he would leave him near the railway station. On the way, accused Nos.1 and 2 boarded the auto rickshaw in the guise of passengers. When the auto rickshaw came near under bridge, the petitioner instead of stopping the auto rickshaw, took the vehicle on Gadag road near Union Office. At that time, accused No.2 put a life threat to the complainant by showing a knife. Accused

¶22

CRL.P.No.100985/2018

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

Nos.1, 2 and 5 snatched a cash of `2,000/- and a cell phone from the possession of the complainant. In the process, they also assaulted the complainant who is said to have thrown his ATM card without delivering it to him. It is further alleged in the charge sheet that, after the alleged robbery, when the complainant escaping from the clutches of accused Nos.1, 2 and 5, started running from the place, other two accused i.e., accused Nos.3 and 4 chased him on their two wheeler and threatened the complainant of dire consequences. With the said allegations, the complainant Police have filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that accused Nos.1 to 4 have already been enlarged on bail. As such, on the ground of parity, the present accused also deserves to be enlarged no bail.

¶26

CRL.P.No.100985/2018

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

Learned Government Pleader who is appearing

¶29

for respondent – State submits that in view of the gravity of the offences and of the fact that it was the present petitioner who had taken the complainant at different places in the auto rickshaw, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶30

A perusal of the charge sheet materials at this stage prima facie goes to show that the complainant Police have alleged involvement of five accused in the alleged commission of crime. Among the five accused, the accused Nos.1 and 2 who are shown to have robbed the complainant at the point of a knife, those two accused have already been said to have enlarged on bail. Considering the circumstance of the case and also the fact that the charge sheet has already been filed by completing the investigation, I am of the view that the benefit of the relief of bail granting to the other accused also requires to be extended to the present petitioner. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may flee

¶31

CRL.P.No.100985/2018

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

from justice can be checked by imposing reasonable restrictions.

¶34

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶35

order:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed. The petitioner be enlarged on bail in Crime No.172/2016 of Keshwapur Police Station, Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court.

¶39

ii. The petitioner to give in writing about the change in his addresses, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard.

¶40

CRL.P.No.100985/2018

¶41

: 6 :

¶42

iii. The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.

¶43

iv. The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Rsh

Sri. Shabazali S/O Sayyadali Sayyed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shabazali S/O Sayyadali Sayyed 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

Ibrahim S/O Abdulkhader Somankoppa Vs Smt. Kausar Banu D/O Shahbbirahed Sayyed

Mahaveer S/O Bharmappa Banajwad Vs the State of Karnataka

Govindappa @ Venkobha Poojar Vs State of Karnataka by

M/S. Barafwala Foods Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj S/O. Meghappa Lamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraj S/O Hanumantappa Kelaginamani Vs the State of Karnataka