Allowed

Ismail Zabiulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021CRL.P/5841/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused in a case involving grievous injuries and attacks, sought bail citing lack of criminal antecedents, verified injuries, completion of investigation, and parity with other accused already released. The Court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering and attendance.

Ismail Zabiulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5841 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

ISMAIL ZABIULLA S/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS HOUSING BOARD KUSHALNAGAR EXTENSION SAKALESHPURA TOWN SAKALESHPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-34

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI: PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SAKALESHPURA TOWN POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI: H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.102/2021 REGISTERED BY SAKELESHPURA TOWN POLICE STATION, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 354, 506 OF IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.102/2021 of Sakaleshpura Town Police Station, Hassan District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Nadeem.

¶20

Heard Sri. Pratheep.K.C., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 03.07.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. The first information was lodged against accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.102/2021 and with

¶22

¶23

regard to the same incident, the father of accused No.3 has also lodged first information against the informant and others in Crime No.103/2021. As per the case made out, only one person had sustained grievous injury. The injured is already discharged from the Hospital. Accused No.3 has also sustained injuries. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. The investigation is almost completed. Therefore, the petitioner is not required to be detained in custody for any other purpose except to ensure his presence before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of parity as all other accused except the present petitioner are on bail. The petitioner is the 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.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious

¶25

¶26

allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences as alleged. The petitioner is accused No.3 who has committed the offence along with other accused. The investigation is still at the initial stage. The injured sustained grievous injury and two others have also sustained injuries. Under such circumstances, the petitioner 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 learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

R E A S O N S

¶31

The allegations made against the petitioner is of serious nature. The materials placed before the Court discloses that the incident had taken place in the house of

¶32

¶33

the injured. However, the injured-Wasim sustained stab injury over abdomen, which is grievous in nature. Admittedly, a counter case is also registered against the informant and others, by the father of accused No.3, which is registered in Crime No.103/2021. The petitioner was apprehended on 03.07.2021. He is not having any criminal antecedents. Admittedly, he is not required for custodial interrogation. Accused No.1 against whom similar allegation is made is already enlarged on bail by this Court. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to detain the petitioner in custody, which would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶34

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶35

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶36

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.102/2021 of Sakaleshpura Town Police Station, Hassan District, 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:

¶40

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶44

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to

¶45

¶46

verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Ismail Zabiulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismail Zabiulla 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

Dinesh S Vs State of Karnataka by

Jagadish Vs State of Karnataka

Mukunda H H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Haisha @ Rudresha B E Vs State of Karnataka

Chethan Naik Vs the State of Karnataka by

Veerendra. P. S. Vs the State of Karnataka by