Allowed

Mohammed Sadiq v. State by Wilson Garden Police Station

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2021CRL.P/1413/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to the petitioner accused in a case involving possession and alleged circulation of counterfeit currency notes. The court imposed strict conditions including a bond, prohibition on tampering with witnesses, and staged surveillance.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail in Crime No.129/2020 subject to a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000, two sureties, and strict conditions regarding surveillance and non-interference.

Mohammed Sadiq Vs State by Wilson Garden Police Station — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1413/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mohammed Sadiq S/o.Mohammed Habeed aged about 30 years No.332, 14^th Cross, Devaraj Urs Nagar Old Guddadahalli Bengaluru-560 026 ..Petitioner (By Sri Sharath S. Gowda, Advocate)

¶8

AND:

¶9

State by Wilson Garden Police Station Bengaluru-560 027 Rep.by SPP High Court Buildings Bengaluru-560 001 ..Respondent (By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

¶10

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.129/2020 of Wilson Garden

¶11

¶12

Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 489A & B of IPC.

¶13

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

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

This petition is filed by accused No.10 under

¶16

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Crime No.129/2020 registered by Wilson Garden Police for the offences punishable under Sections 489A and 489B of IPC.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that one Manjunath who is a driver of an autorickshaw filed a complaint before the police alleging that accused No.1 boarded his autorickshaw from City Market to go to Shanthinagar on 25.12.2020 during midnight and when

¶18

he alighted at Shanthinagar, accused No.1 said to have given one fake currency note of Rs.100/-. Suspecting the same, complainant took accused No.1 to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. The said fake

¶19

¶20

currency note was seized by the police from the possession of Accused No.1 and he was taken to custody. During the course of investigation, accused No.1 revealed the name of accused No.2, who in turn stated to have given voluntary statement wherein he has revealed the name of accused No.10, the present petitioner. Accordingly, on 8.1.2021 police apprehended this petitioner and two counterfeit notes of denomination of Rs.100/- were seized from his possession under PF.No.7/2021 and arrested this petitioner. Later he was produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail which came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated by the police. Even otherwise, the petitioner was arrested and

¶22

¶23

brought to the Police Station and he was in possession of two fake currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/, the offence against him attracts only under Section 489C of IPC which is a bailable offence and maximum punishment is seven years of imprisonment. The petitioner has not attempted to circulate the fake currency notes and therefore he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶24

Per contra , the learned HCGP has objected the bail petition and contended that the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous one, he has colluded with other accused persons in circulating the counterfeit currency notes. Investigation is still pending and charge sheet has not yet been filed. Therefore, he prayed for rejecting the petition.

¶25

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly on 25.12.2020, the police arrested accused No.1 while receiving the complaint

¶26

¶27

from Manjunath who is a driver of an autorickshaw alleging that accused No.1 boarded his autorickshaw and when he was alighting at Shantinagar, he gave a fake currency note of Rs.100/- to the complainant. At the time of recording of voluntary statement of accused No.1, he revealed the name of accused No.2 who was arrested by the police, who in turn also revealed the name of the present petitioner when his voluntary statement was being recorded. Thereafter, this petitioner was apprehended and brought before the Investigating Officer. Petitioner was in possession of two counterfeit currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- which came to be seized by the police.

¶28

Admittedly, this petitioner was in possession of counterfeit currency notes which attracts the provisions of Section 489C of IPC. There is no allegation that the petitioner has tried to circulate or print out the fake currency notes. Though investigation is still pending,

¶29

¶30

but the allegation made against the petitioner only attracts the provision of Section 489C of IPC which is a bailable offence. Therefore, without expressing anything on merits of the matter, by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioner is released on bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.

¶31

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶32

The trial Court is directed to release Accused No.10, the present petitioner, namely Mohammed Sadiq, on bail in Crime No.129/2020 registered by Wilson Garden Police for the offences punishable under Sections 489A and 489B of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

¶33

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶34

¶35

ii) He shall not indulge in similar offences strictly.

¶36

iii) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶37

iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.

¶38

v) He shall appear and mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on 2^nd and 16^th of the calendar month between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is later.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

*ck/-

Mohammed Sadiq v. State by Wilson Garden Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sadiq v. State by Wilson Garden Police Station

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

Sitharam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Raju C C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. H. Puttahanumaiah @ Praveen Vs State of Karnataka

Sadashiva Thudu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nanjundaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Yashwanth Vs State of Karnataka