Allowed

Mohammad Mansoor Khan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2021CRL.P/5943/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail petition of an accused facing charges of criminal conspiracy and cheating. It granted bail subject to the condition that the CBI must record witness statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by February 12, 2021, due to the petitioner's serious illness.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with a bond of Rs. 5,00,000 and two sureties, conditional on recording Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements by February 12, 2021.

Mohammad Mansoor Khan Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRL.P.NO.5943 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mohammad Mansoor Khan Son of Abid Ali Khan Aged about 54 years Resident of No.9, Penthouse Bythal Mariyam Apartments 5^th Floor, Park Road Tasker Town, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. Nandakumar C.K, Advocate) AND:

¶10

Central Bureau of Investigation (ACB) Office of Superintendent of Police No.36, Bellary Road, KGH Layout, Ganganagar, Bengaluru – 560 032.

¶11

RESPONDENT (By Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar, Spl. P.P.)

¶12

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.R.No.73/2019 (Spl.C.C.No.1055/2019) of Commercial Street Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 409, 477A, 406, 420 of IPC.

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

This criminal petition pertaining to Principal Bench, Bengaluru, coming on for orders through video conferencing at Dharwad, this day, the court made the following :

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard Sri. Nandakumar C.K. for the petitioner and

¶17

Sri. P. Prasanna Kumar for the respondent.

¶18

This is a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought bail in relation to Spl.C.C.No.1055/2019 (R.C.No.14(A)/2019) registered by the respondent – police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 420 and 477A of IPC.

¶19

The petitioner was admitted to bail by this court by disposing of Crl.P.No.4580/2020 in relation to Spl.C.C.No.1088/2019 for the offence arising under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The respondent has initiated investigation on the same set of facts. In view of discussion in Crl.P.No.4580/2020, I do not think it necessary to pass a detailed order here. I find a case for granting bail to the petitioner. But Sri. P.Prasanna Kumar, Spl. P.P. submits that the CBI wants to produce the

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

witnesses before the Magistrate for obtaining their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and till such statements are recorded, the consideration of the bail application may be deferred till end of April, 2021. This is seriously opposed by Sri. Nandakumar C.K. His submission is that the petitioner is seriously ill and has been hospitalized. When this court has enlarged the petitioner on bail in connection with the case registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India on the same set of facts, consideration of bail application cannot be deferred for such a long time. I concur with the submission of Sri. Nandakumar C.K. Granting of bail cannot be postponed for such a long time, if the CBI wants to produce the witnesses before the Magistrate for taking their statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it must be done at the earliest. Therefore I am of the opinion that the petition may be allowed, but with a condition that this order will come into effect from 12.02.2021 and within this date the respondent may produce the witnesses before

¶22

: 4 :

¶23

Magistrate for recording their statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Hence the following order:

¶24

(a) Petition is allowed.

¶25

(b) Petitioner shall be released on bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.5,00,000/and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial court shall ascertain the whereabouts of the sureties before accepting the surety bonds.

¶26

The petitioner is also subjected to the following conditions:

¶27

(i) He shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of trial.

¶28

(ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses.

¶29

(iii) He shall not alienate any of his properties till conclusion of trial and in case a need arises to alienate, he shall disclose to the trial court the purpose which necessitates alienation and obtain permission of the trial court. The trial court may impose conditions if it decides to permit alienation.

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

(iv) Till conclusion of trial, he shall mark his attendance in the office of the respondent once in a fortnight, preferably on a Monday in between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon.

¶32

(v) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Mohammad Mansoor Khan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Mansoor Khan v. Central Bureau of Investigation

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

Rakesh S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Gouse Peer @ Munna Vs State by

Senthil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rahul Thonse Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Khayum Khan Vs State of Karnataka