Criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in offences under Sections 457 and 380 IPC dismissed. Court denied bail despite petitioner's acquittals in similar cases due to history of absconding, multiple pending cases, and pending trial since 2010.
Petition dismissed; trial court directed to dispose matter within eight months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7017 OF 2021
BETWEEN :
MUSHEER KHAN @ MUSHEER, S/O LATE BASHEER KHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT COLLEGE ROAD, BEHIND NANDASHREE KALYANA MANTAPA, HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL - 560 078.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI.MOHAMMED PASHA C., ADVOCATE)
AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BANGARPET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT CAMPUS, BENGALURU - 560 001.
… RESPONDENT (BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.377/201 (CR.NO.83/2010) OF BANGARPET POLICE STATION, KOLAR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 457 AND 380 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2 -
O R D E R
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.83/2010 of Bangarpet Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri.H.S.Somashekar.
apprehended in another case and was in judicial custody. Therefore, again body warrant was issued and his presence was secured on 29.01.2015. The petitioner was again enlarged on bail on 16.10.2015. However, in the meantime, he once again apprehended in Crime No.58/2020 and therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court. However now he is in judicial custody. Petitioner is not required for further investigation as the matter is pending in C.C.377/2011 before learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Bangarpet. Petitioner could not appear before the Court only on the ground that he was being implicated in other cases and detained in custody. The petitioner is already acquitted in eight similar cases. 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.
committed the offences. FIR is of the year 2010. His presence could not be secured for about two years and on body warrant, his presence was initially secured on 20.03.2012. Even though he was enlarged on bail, he remained absence frequently. The petitioner if at all was apprehended in another criminal case, the same could have been brought to the notice of the Court. But the petitioner was absconding and NBW was being reissued repeatedly. More over, during 2014, he was enlarged on bail subject to condition that he will not commit similar offences. However, thereafter, he involved in many other similar cases and the trial in four cases are still pending. Under such circumstances, enlarging the petitioner on bail would further hamper the trial in the case. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:
R E A S O N S
allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though the FIR was registered on 16.04.2010, his presence was not secured till 26.03.2012. Thereafter, he was enlarged on bail subject to conditions. Again he remained absent before trial Court. However, his presence was secured on 29.01.2015. The petitioner was again enlarged on bail on 16.10.2015. However, thereafter again he remained absent. It is stated that there were more than 12 cases registered against the petitioner for having committed similar offences. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis cannot be accepted, at this stage. However, it is stated that he is acquitted in eight cases and four more cases are pending against him. If the
petitioner is enlarged on bail, definitely the trial in the case which is of the year 2010 would be hampered. Therefore, I am of the opinion that necessary directions may be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. But however, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
ORDER
The petition is dismissed .
The trial Court is directed to expedite and dispose of the
matter within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, petitioner will be at liberty to move similar petition.
Registry is directed to communicate the order to the concerned trial court forthwith.
pgg
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. considering his history of absconding?
Whether the trial pending since 2010 requires expedited disposal as a consequence of denying bail?
Whether the contention of false implication is acceptable at the bail stage?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
MUSHEER KHAN @ MUSHEER
STATE OF KARNATAKA
M.G. UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
