Partly allowed

Muneer v. State by

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021CRL.P/7067/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the second petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after verifying his Indian citizenship via Aadhaar and finding false implication, rejecting the practice of non-verification, but dismissed the first petitioner's application due to unresolved citizenship doubts.

What did the court decide?

Second petitioner released on bail with Rs. 2,00,000 bond and two sureties; first petitioner's application dismissed.

Muneer Vs State by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7067/2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MUNEER S/O KADIR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RAIL COLONY, KABI MUKUNDA DAS ROAD, NEAR 3 NO RAIL GATE, NORTH DUM, DUM(M) NORTH-24, PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL-700065.

¶7

MILAN S/O HALIM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, NEAR 3 NO RAIL GATE, NORTH DUM, DUM(M) NORTH-24, PARGANAS, WEST BENGAL-700065.

¶8

PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY WHITEFIELD PS REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶12

RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.598/2018 OF WHITEFIELD P.S.,

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 224, 332, 353, 307 R/W 34 I.P.C. AND SECTION 14(a) (b) OF FOREIGNERS ACT.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION PERTAINING TO PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING AT DHARWAD, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This is the second bail application by the 2^nd petitioner and first application by 1^st petitioner. On 6^th October, 2020, 2^nd petitioner’s first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The 2^nd petitioner is implicated of committing offences punishable under Sections 224, 332, 353, 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and Section 14(a) and (b) of the Foreigners Act. The respondent-police have registered an FIR against the petitioners in Crime No.598/2018. The allegation against the petitioners is that when the police were in search of accused in connection with a decoity case, the petitioners and other accused attacked them when they were about to be apprehended.

¶19

: 3 :

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶21

and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that on the last occasion, bail was rejected for the reason that the 2^nd petitioner was from Bangladesh and he did not have passport also and that he was involved in other criminal cases. He further submits that this time, he has filed a memo enclosing therewith xerox copy of the petitioner’s Aadhar Card and other documents which show that he is not from Bangladesh, rather he is Indian. He refers to voluntary statement of Aslam @ Raosan given before the Delhi police and submits that based on the voluntary statement of another accused in another case, the 2^nd petitioner appears to have been implicated. But this voluntary statement does not disclose the name of the 2^nd petitioner. Hence, if all these aspects are taken into consideration, it can be very well said that the 2^nd petitioner has been falsely implicated and that there are no prima facie materials.

¶23

: 4 :

¶24

The Government Pleader opposes the bail application on the ground that the documents produced by the 2^nd petitioner are false and that he is involved in other criminal cases. Changed circumstance is not made out and therefore bail petition is to be rejected.

¶25

On the last occasion, the Government Pleader was directed to verify the genuineness of the identity proof produced by the 2^nd petitioner. The Government Pleader sought time on the last occasion for verifying the same, but so far it appears that no effort is made by the Government Pleader for ascertaining the genuineness of the identity proof. Now if these documents are seen, it appears that he is a resident of a house at Bellanduru, Bengaluru. The same is forthcoming from the xerox copy of the Aadhar Card of the petitioner. He has also produced certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school where he studied. It shows that he studied at a school in West Bengal State, North 24 Parganas District. The Aadhar Card discloses that he is resident of Bengaluru.

¶26

: 5 :

¶27

Now if the voluntary statement of one Aslam @ Raosan is perused, it may be seen that he has given statement about some crimes said to have been committed by him, but in this statement, the name of the 2^nd petitioner is not forthcoming. So if this is the basis for suspecting the involvement of the 2^nd petitioner in other criminal cases, it can be stated that this does not disclose his involvement. In view of this, I find a case for admitting the 2^nd petitioner to bail.

¶28

However, in regard to first petitioner, there is no case for granting bail as the petitioners’ counsel did not point out any ground that entitles him to be released on bail. It is not sure whether he is citizen of India or not. Therefore, bail cannot be granted to the 1^st petitioner. Therefore, the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(a) Petition is allowed partly only with regard to 2^nd petitioner. Petition is dismissed so far as 1^st petitioner is concerned.

¶31

: 6 :

¶32

(b) 2^nd petitioner shall be released on bail on obtaining from him a bond for Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees two lakhs only) and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The trial court shall satisfy itself about the sureties that may be produced before it at the time of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶33

The 2^nd petitioner is also subjected to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) He shall not threaten the witnesses and make an attempt to destroy the evidence.

¶35

(ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court till conclusion of trial.

¶36

(iii) He shall not get involved in any criminal case in future.

¶37

(iv) He shall mark his attendance before the respondent-police every week preferably on Sunday between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon till conclusion of trial.

¶38

(v) He shall produce his authenticated address proof before the trial court and in case he changes his residence, details of changed address shall be provided to the trial court.

¶39

: 7 :

¶40

(vi) In case, the 2^nd petitioner wants to change his residence, the same shall be intimated to the investigating officer before shifting to another residence and furnish the address of new residence to respondent police station.

¶41

The trial court shall get the Aadhar Card produced by the 2^nd petitioner verified by police, and in case it is found that it is not genuine, the trial court can cancel the bail and take the 2^nd petitioner to custody.

¶42

Violation of any of the conditions will be seriously viewed for cancellation of bail.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

CLK

Muneer v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneer v. State by

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

Keerthan Shetty Vs State of Karnataka

Praveena @ Karadi Vs State of Karnataka

Ahmmed Hassan @ Hadam Vs State by Yeshwanthpura Police

Amir Khan @ Papu Vs State by Kuthnoor P S

Mr. Arunmanoraj R Vs State of Karnataka

R. Vishwanath @ Vishwa Vs State of Karnataka