Allowed

Saddam Hussen @ Saddam v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2021CRL.P/6591/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed criminal petition seeking enlargement on bail in a case involving offences under Sections 341, 504, 307 r/w 34 IPC, granting bail subject to monetary bond and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by executing bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions regarding offences, witness tampering, and court appearance.

Saddam Hussen @ Saddam Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6591 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SADDAM HUSSEN @ SADDAM, S/O MOHAMMAD ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT AHMED NAGAR, NELLURUPALA POST, HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 189.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.LETHIF, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. (BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.182/2021 OF HUNUSUR RURAL P.S., MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 504, 307 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner - accused No.1 is before this Court

¶18

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.182/2021 of Hunusur Rural Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant - Kamal Pasha.

¶19

Heard Sri. Lethif B., learned Counsel for the

¶20

petitioner and Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned Counsel for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶22

the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. 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 was apprehended on 30.06.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that the injured and the petitioner were chilly vendors. There were as many as 7 other persons who were also selling chilly. There was an altercation between the petitioner and other auto drivers, in

¶23

¶24

which the chilly were being transported. It is alleged that when accused Nos.2 and 3 were holding the injured, the petitioner stabbed him with the knife. The injured is said to have sustained only one injury. He has already discharged from the hospital. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. The investigation is already completed and the charge sheet will be filed at any time. Under such circumstances, 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 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.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The petitioner picked up quarrel with the injured and stabbed him with knife. As a result of the same, the injured sustained lacerated wound. He undergone surgery and thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶26

¶27

petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

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

¶29

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶30

for grant of bail under Section 439 of

¶31

Cr.P.C.?”

¶32

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

¶33

following:

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶36

allegations are made against all the accused including the present petitioner for having committed the offences. There are eyewitnesses to the incident and injured has sustained grievous injuries and as per the wound certificate, he has undergone surgeries. All these materials prima facie disclose the commission of offence by the petitioner and at this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petition is falsely implicated in the case without any basis. However, admittedly the

¶37

¶38

investigation is completed and it is not the contention of prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation or that he is having any criminal antecedents. 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 apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶40

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.182/2021 of Hunusur Rural 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:

¶44

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶45

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the addresses 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.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

NR/-

Saddam Hussen @ Saddam v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saddam Hussen @ Saddam 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

Abdul Jabeer @ Jabeer Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhu @ Bhajanthri Vs State of Karnataka

Sathish Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraja Vs State of Karnataka

Nayeem Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Raghu Alias Rohith Vs State of Karnataka