Allowed

Mainuddin S/O Imamsab Bankapur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2020CRL.P/101290/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition for bail filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, convicted in offences under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506 IPC, was remanded after absconding on previous bail. The Court granted bail by imposing a bond and strict conditions of regular attendance and no tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail under S.C.No.107/2017 by executing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties and complying with conditions of attendance and no tampering.

Mainuddin S/O Imamsab Bankapur Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO. 101290 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MAINUDDIN S/O IMAMSAB BANKAPUR AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: FURNITURE WORK, R/O: MUDUKAPPA, ISHWAR NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, (NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY AT HUBBALLI JAIL) ... PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. K M SHIRALLI, ADV.)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KASABAPETH P.S., HUBBALLI, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH DHARWAD.

¶11

... RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ORDER THE RELEASE OF THIS PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.107/2017 PENDING ON THE

¶14

¶15

FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 307, 504, 506 OF IPC ARISING OUT OF KASABAPETH P.S.CRIME NO.3/2015, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 324, 307, 504, 506 OF IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail in SC No.107/2017 pending on the file of I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State.

¶20

Crime No.3/2015 at Kasabapeth Police Station was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307, 504,

¶21

¶22

506 of IPC on the complaint lodged by Tajuddin S/o.Abdul Rahiman Nayak with regard to an incident of assault which took place on 10.01.2015 at about 2.30 a.m. The petitioner came to be arrested on the same day. He was enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 03.02.2015 in Crl.Misc. No.62/2015. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 324, 307, 504 & 506 of IPC. The petitioner remained absent before the Court below, hence, NBW was issued against him and he was arrested and produced before the Court on 27.09.2018. He was then remanded to judicial custody. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to enlarge him on bail on 12.10.2018 imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner was released on 15.10.2018. However, since the petitioner again remained absent, NBW was

¶23

¶24

issued once again and he was arrested and produced before the Court on 12.11.2019. The application filed by him for bail came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 22.09.2020.

¶25

It is seen that the learned Sessions Judge has

¶26

rejected the bail petition since, in spite of grant of bail on two occasions, the petitioner remained absent and thereby violated the conditions of bail.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶28

that the petitioner is a carpenter by profession. To earn his livelihood and in search of work, he had left Hubballi and therefore he could not appear before the Court. He submits that the absence of the petitioner is neither intentional nor deliberate but for the aforesaid reasons and henceforth, the petitioner will appear before the trial Court on all dates.

¶29

¶30

The learned HCGP opposed the petition

¶31

contending that in spite grant of bail to the petitioner, he has misused the liberty granted to him, which shows that he has no regard for the order of the Court. Accordingly, she seeks to reject the petition.

¶32

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was

¶33

granted bail on two occasions. Since he remained absent, NBW was issued and thereafter he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. From 12.11.2019 he is in judicial custody. Material on record discloses that the petitioner has appeared before the Sessions Court between 11.12.2018 and 24.04.2019. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, a carpenter by profession had been to Hubballi in search of work for his livelihood.

¶34

Considering submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the

¶35

¶36

prevailing situation and the fact that the petitioner was granted bail earlier and he has been in custody for a total period of about one year, I am of the view that by imposing suitable conditions, he can be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following order.

¶37

ORDER

¶38

a) Petition is allowed.

¶39

b) The petitioner/accused in S.C.NO.107/2017 pending on the tile of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi, arising out of Kasabapeth P.S.Crime No.3/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307, 504, 506 of IPC, shall be enlarged on bail, on the following conditions:

¶40

I. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge.

¶41

¶42

II. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶43

III. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.

¶44

IV. The petitioner shall be regular in attending the trial proceedings.

¶45

V. The petitioner shall furnish his correct permanent address and shall intimate the change of address, if any.

¶46

In the event of violation of any of the conditions, the petitioner will not be entitled for further

¶47

indulgence.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

lad

Mainuddin S/O Imamsab Bankapur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mainuddin S/O Imamsab Bankapur 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

Anant S/O. Mahadev Gouda Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Raju @ Jogi S/O Mallappa Jiddimani Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna S/O Basappa Kalabhavi Vs the State of Karnataka

Prasad G.L.V. S/O Baktavasthala Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajjaiah S @ Ajjaya S/O Basavaraja Vs the State of Karnataka

Parashuram S/O Khandojirao Vs the State of Karnataka