Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Mohammed Iqbal

Karnataka HC7 Oct 2021CRL.P/5851/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a State petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by a Trial Court. The Court held that since the accused did not appear, it is not appropriate to recall bail at this stage, reserving the prosecution's right to apply to the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

The petition for cancellation of bail was dismissed; liberty reserved to prosecution to move application before Trial Court.

The State of Karnataka Vs Mohammed Iqbal — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5851 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KONAJE POLICE STATION REP.BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-01

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH:HCGP)

¶11

AND :

¶12

MOHAMMED IQBAL S/O MOIDINABBA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O JOKATTE HOUSE MANGALURU TALUK-575001

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. B.K.SANJAY: ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED BY THE STATE P.P UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU DATED 03.07.2019 IN CRL.MISC.NO.910/2019, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND C.J.M., MANGALURU AND THE CUSTODY OF THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED IS REQUIRED FOR INVESTIGATION OFFICER FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND ALLOW THIS CRL.P.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-State is before this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted by the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru vide order dated 03.07.2019 in Crl.Misc.No.910/2019, pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM at Mangaluru and the custody of the respondent-accused is required for Investigation officer for further investigation, for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶20

Heard Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court

¶21

Government Pleader for the petitioner-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

It is noticed that the State has filed this petition, seeking cancellation of bail on the ground that the respondent /accused has not complied with the directions issued while granting anticipatory bail by the Learned VI

¶23

¶24

Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.910/2019 vide order dated 03.07.2019. The learned High Court Government Pleader, specifically submitted that even though there was a direction to appear before the Investigating Officer and to assist in the investigation, the respondent has not appeared before the Investigating Officer, nor assisted in the investigation. Under such circumstances, he prays for allowing the petition and to cancel anticipatory bail granting in favour of the respondent.

¶25

It is noticed that initially the respondent was served with notice of the petition and he engaged the service of the counsel. However, subsequently neither the respondent nor the counsel appeared before the Court and there was no representation. Since the respondent is not residing in the given address and avoiding the service of notice, the service of notice could not be complied with. In the meantime, it is observed that the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, granted

¶26

¶27

anticipatory bail subject to conditions. When it is the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader that none of the conditions imposed by the learned District and Sessions Judge are complied with, the prosecution will be at liberty to move necessary application before the Court, which passed the order, as the concerned Court will be in a better position to consider the non-compliance of directions/conditions imposed on the respondent-accused. If the Court finds that there is non-compliance of the conditions imposed on the respondent while granting anticipatory bail, definitely, the said order could be cancelled. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition before this Court.

¶28

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed,

¶29

reserving liberty to the prosecution to move necessary application with similar prayer before the Trial Court.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

SKS

The State of Karnataka v. Mohammed Iqbal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Mohammed Iqbal

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

Manish Singh Vs State by

Sri Manjunath Vs State by Birur Police

Smt . Indu Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha @ Elaniru Manja Vs State of Karnataka

Narasimhappa @ Narasimhamurthy Vs State of Karnataka

Musheer Khan @ Musheer Vs State of Karnataka