Allowed

Mogli @ Irfan Pasha v. the State

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2021CRL.P/2982/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to four petitioners accused of offences under the IPC. The Court observed that investigation was complete, injuries were minimal, and the petitioners lacked need for further inquiry. Conditions included bond deposit, sureties, and restrictions on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners enlarged on bail subject to furnishing bond, sureties, appearing before IO, and not threatening witnesses.

Mogli @ Irfan Pasha Vs the State — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2982/2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

Mogli @ Irfan Pasha S/o Rizwan Pasha Aged about 30 years R/at Block No.8 15th Block K.S.D.B Quarters Sulikunte Bengaluru - 560 125

¶8

Aptab @ Altap S/o Basha Aged about 20 years R/at Block No.36 8th Block, K.S.D.B Quarters Sarjapura Main Road Sulikunte Bengaluru - 560 125

¶9

Noori @ Noori Banu W/o Basha Aged about 45 years R/at Block No.8, 36th Block K.S.D.B Quarters Sarjapura Main Road Bengaluru - 560 125

¶10

Ammu W/o Ravi Saravana Aged about 42 years R/at No.2, 10th Block K.S.D.B Quarters Sarjapura Main Road

Bengaluru - 560 125

…Petitioners

(By Sri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, Advocate)

¶15

AND :

¶16

The State Rep. by Vartur Station Bengaluru Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru - 560 001

¶17

… Respondent

¶18

(By Sri.K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.106/2020 registered by Varthur Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences P/U/S 143, 147, 354, 307, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.106/2020 of Varthur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 307, 354, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Smt. Annai Pushpam.

¶23

¶24

Heard Sri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4. They have not committed any offences as alleged. They are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. They are having reasonable apprehension of being arrested and therefore they are before this Court. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 armed with club and knife, accused No.3 with a knife , accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 with club assaulted CWs.4, 5 and 6 and caused injuries, with an intention to cause the death, criminally intimidated to take away their life. But no one sustained any injury in the alleged incident. On the other hand, the petitioner was assaulted by the informant and others. A criminal case in Crime No.105/2020 was registered with Varthur Police Station. As a counterblast this counter complaint is registered in Crime No.106/2020. The wound certificate discloses that only one person sustained one cut

¶26

¶27

lacerated wound over forehead which is simple in nature. Under such circumstances, the allegation made against the petitioner with regard to the commission of the offences under various penal provisions including Section 307 cannot be accepted. The investigation is completed, charge sheet is already filed. Petitioners are not required for further investigation. They are not having any criminal antecedents.They are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and are ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against these petitioners for having committed the offences. The informant specifically stated regarding the offence committed by the petitioners. These petitioners are the main accused. CWs.5 to 7 are the eye witnesses who have given their statement regarding the overt act committed by each of the accused. These petitioners are

¶29

5 -

¶30

having criminal antecedents for having committed similar criminal cases. These petitioners are absconding since the date of registration of the case. Considering the seriousness of the offence and also the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the petitioners prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶32

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶33

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The materials on record discloses that serious allegations are made against these petitioners for having committed the offences. It is stated that CWs.5 to 7 are the eye witnesses to the incident and they have given their statement before the police. It is also stated that the

¶36

¶37

investigation is completed and the charge sheet is filed. Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. However, admittedly, the investigation is completed. Petitioners are not required for further investigation. The wound certificate of the injured i.e., Elizabeth discloses that she has not sustained any external injury. The wound certificate of one Jenifer discloses that she sustained one cut lacerated wound over forehead which is simple in nature. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the claim of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶39

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The petition is allowed.

¶42

¶43

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.106/2020 of Varthur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 307, 354, 504 and 506 of IPC, 1860.

¶44

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶45

a. The petitioners shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶46

b. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences;

¶47

c. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶48

d. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶49

¶50

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the addresses and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a

¶51

reasonable time.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

HB/-

Mogli @ Irfan Pasha v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mogli @ Irfan Pasha v. the State

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

M Harsha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka by

Samiulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Shakthi Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Gajendra Alies Gaja Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Syed Dada Peer Vs the State of Karnataka