Allowed

Waseem Hyder @ v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2021CRL.P/1301/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the petitioner accused in a dacoity case. Despite prosecution objections regarding similar cases and lack of money recovery, the court granted bail subject to bond and conditions including non-tampering and not leaving jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail via trial court bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and subject to conditions including no tampering and no leaving jurisdiction without permission.

Waseem Hyder @ Vs State of Karnataka by — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1301/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

WASEEM HYDER @ WASIM S/O SYED INAYATH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT #46/A, 5^TH CROSS, II MAIN, BAPUJINAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 026. (IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.RAMESHA H N, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VEERANNA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 599. REP.BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI.K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.348/2018(C.C.NO.693/2019) OF HIRIYUR RURAL P.S., CHITRADURGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.348/2018 registered by Hiriyuru Rural Police for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that one Ranganatha filed a complaint on 3.10.2018 alleging that he was working as a cashier in HP Petrol Bunk, near K.R. Hally, Hiriyuru Taluk on night duty between 10.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m., and thereafter he went to sleep and one Rajashekar was looking after the petrol bunk duty. At that time, at about 3.10 a.m., a Swift car came for filing diesel and the inmates of the car by

¶20

¶21

showing the weapons, robbed the cash from the complainant and also from the treasury for about Rs.1,48,000/- and cash of Rs.5,000/- from CW.1, Rs.8,000/from CW.2, Rs.3,000/from CW.4, Rs.30,000/- from CW.5 and cell phone. After registering the case against unknown persons, during the investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner and accused persons were arrested by Bidadi police in Crime No.363/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code on 23.12.2018 and thereafter, the presence of the petitioner was secured under body warrant.

¶22

Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, it shows that no doubt some unknown persons came and committed dacoity in the petrol bunk and after arrest, absolutely there is no recovery shown in the case with regard to the money robbed from the petrol bunk though some of the

¶23

¶24

weapons were seized by the police but absolutely there is no money seized in this case. The co-accused No.5

¶25

is already granted bail by this court in Crl.P.No.3687/2020 on 2.9.2020. The only objection from the prosecution is that he is involved in similar eleven cases. The learned counsel submits that he has been granted bail in all nine cases except two cases. Learned counsel submits that there is no test identification parade conducted by the police for identifying the accused persons who is stated to have committed the offence. Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is in custody for almost two years. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if the petitioner/accused No.6 is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶28

¶29

The trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.6 on bail in Crime No.348/2018 registered by Hiriyuru Rural Police for the offences punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶31

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶32

iii) He shall not indulge himself in similar offences strictly;

¶33

iv) He shall take the trial without causing any delay; and

¶34

v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of this court without prior permission of the trial court.

¶35

If any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

cbc

Waseem Hyder @ v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem Hyder @ v. State of Karnataka by

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

Devine Asamoah Vs State by Karnataka

Abdul Wasim Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Hemantha Kumar a N @ Kanna Vs State by Keragodu Police Station

Manjunatha D. E. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Prabhavati Vs State of Karnataka

Ibrahim Kutty Vs the State of Karnataka