Dismissed

Nayeem Ahmed v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2021CRL.P/3300/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the prima facie materials disclosed serious allegations, including use of violence against police, and the petitioner had been absconding for over a year, precluding the grant of bail.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Nayeem Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka by — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3300 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

NAYEEM AHMED, S/O NISAR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO.169, ELECTRONIC CITY MAIN ROAD, BETTADASANAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.VISHWANATH KANAVI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 01. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ABHIJITH K.S., HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.264/2020 OF ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(b) OF NDPS ACT AND SECTIONS 307, 332, 353 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶14

2 -

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.264/2020 of Attibele Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act and Sections 307, 332, 353 R/W 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri.Satish B.S.

¶18

Heard Sri.Vishwanath Kanavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Abhijith K.S., learned HCGP for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He is having reasonable apprehension of he being arrested and therefore, he is before this Court. It is alleged that the Police Officer received credible information regarding accused No.1 and another and to apprehend them, they are

¶20

¶21

said to have arrived at the spot. It is stated that accused No.1 was caught red-handed, while he was in possession of 7.5 kgs. of ganja and the other person had ran away from the scene of occurrence. It is stated that the petitioner is referred by one Nayeem, who was accompanied him. Petitioner has never committed any offence nor accompanied accused No.1. Accused No.1 is already enlarged on bail. Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Chargesheet is not yet filed. He is permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is 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.

¶22

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Investigating Officer received credible information regarding accused Nos.1 and 2, who were involved in other 7 to 8 similar cases of possession and transporting of ganja. When Police went to the spot and apprehended them, accused No.1 stabbed one inspector.

¶23

4 -

¶24

Accused No.2 who is the petitioner herein also stabbed the Head Constable and caused injuries. Accused No.2 managed to escape from the scene of occurrence, whereas, accused No.1 was caught by Investigating Officer after firing at his leg. 7.5 kgs of ganja was recovered at the instance of accused No.1. Since accused No.2 is absconding, investigation is still at the initial stage. Considering the seriousness of the offences, petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he may never turn up before the Investigating Officer or may commit similar offences, threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

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

¶26

“Whethis the petitioner is entitled for

¶27

grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶28

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the

following:

R E A S O N S

The materials placed on record prima facie disclose that, serious allegations are made against petitioner for having committed the offences. It is stated that accused No.1 was caught red-handed after firing at his leg and 7.5 kgs of ganja was recovered. It is also stated that accused No.2, petitioner herein stabbed one of the police personnel and caused injuries before fleeing away. Under such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Admittedly, since from the date of offence i.e. more than a year from today, petitioner is absconding. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offences, petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶33

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶34

negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is dismissed .

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

pgg

Nayeem Ahmed v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayeem Ahmed v. the 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

Abdul Jabeer @ Jabeer Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhu @ Bhajanthri Vs State of Karnataka

Sathish Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Saddam Hussen @ Saddam Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Raghu Alias Rohith Vs State of Karnataka