Allowed

Sri Mohammed Aleemulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jul 2021CRL.P/3882/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court granted bail to the petitioner, who was the husband of a deceased woman charged under Sections 498A, 306, 304B, and 302 IPC, noting the investigation was completed and co-accused were already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No. 1/2021 on bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

Sri Mohammed Aleemulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3882/2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI MOHAMMED ALEEMULLA S/O LATE MOHAMMED KHALEEL ULLA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT VYSHYARA BEEDI THYAMANGONDLU VILLAGE AND HOLBI NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562132 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA.,SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI.KHADRI.S.A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HEAD OFFICER THYAMAGONDLU POLICE STATION NELAMANGALA TALUK-562132 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶13

SRI ASLAM PASHA S/O LATE MOHAMMED GHOUSE AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS BARBENDER NO.83, 1^ST CROSS NEAR VINAYAKA HOSPITAL ASHOKA NAGAR FAKEEL PALYA TUMKUR TOWN-572101

¶14

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ABHIJIT.K.S., HCGP)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.1/2021 OF BANGALORE RURAL RAILWAY P.S., KARNATAKA RAILWAY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 306, 304B, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.1/2021 of Thyamagondlu Police Station, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304(b) and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶20

Heard Sri.Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.S.Abhijit,, learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶21

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498,

¶22

¶23

306 r/w 34 of IPC. The petitioner is accused No.1 who is the husband of the deceased-Smt.Kowsar. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A 304B r/w 34 of IPC. There is absolutely no material that attracts any of these provisions and he further submits that accused Nos.2 and 3 have already enlarged on bail by this Court. Therefore, on parity the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail who is in custody since 27.04.2021. Since the investigation is already completed, the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of 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.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having

¶25

¶26

committed the offences and the petitioner is the main accused who is the husband of the deceased. The investigation is completed and chargesheet is filed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶28

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶29

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶30

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

¶31

the following:

¶32

R E A S O N S

¶33

The materials placed on record before this

¶34

Court discloses that serious allegations are made against all the accused. The petitioner is in custody since 27.04.2021 and he is subjected to investigation. It is not

¶35

¶36

the contention of the prosecution that he is required for further investigation. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody is not required, for any other purposes, except to ensure the presence of the petitioner before the Trial Court. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of accused No.1 and are already enlarged on bail by this Court. Hence on parity, the present petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶37

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed.

¶40

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.1/2021 of Thyamagondlu Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

¶42

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶43

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶44

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

RKA

Sri Mohammed Aleemulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Aleemulla 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

Mr Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Ali Akbar @ Ali Umar Vs State of Karnataka

Ramanna @ Ramachandraiah Vs State by Excise Police

Mallikarjun @ Malli Vs State by Kothanur

Sri.Siddanath Gangadhar Lavate Vs the State of Karnataka

Swamy @ Vinayaswamy Vs State of Karnataka