Allowed

Khairule Bhasheer @ Bhasheer v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2021CRL.P/7292/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Bangalore High Court allowed bail for accused No.2 involved in robbery offences under IPC Sections 120B, 395, and 397, concluding that parity with a co-accusant and completion of investigation justified release subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs. 2 Lakhs with two sureties subject to conditions regarding appearance, no tampering, and no new offences.

Khairule Bhasheer @ Bhasheer Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶4

CRL.P NO.7292/2021

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

KHAIRULE BHASHEER @ BHASHEER, S/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.A7, MALABAAR ICE, TALAP, KANNUR CITYT, KANNUR DISTRICT-670007.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.LETHIF B., ADV.)

¶9

AND

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, REP.BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶11

RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI.K.B.AMBURTESH, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO RELESE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.60/2021 (C.C.NO.785/2021) OF HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATINO, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120B, 395 AND 397 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUNSUR, MYSURU DISTRICT.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in crime No.60/2021 of Hunsur Police Station, Mysore City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 395 and 397 of IPC, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Hunsur, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informantSooraj,.

¶18

Heard learned counsel Sri.Lethif B. for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The petitioner was apprehended on 13.04.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against 6 to 7 unknown persons. Subsequently, the petitioner is named without

¶20

¶21

any basis. It is also stated that Rs.20 lakhs was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, which is disputed by the petitioner. Similar allegations are made against accused No.1 and he is already enlarged on bail vide order dated 07.09.2021 passed by this court in Crl.P.No.4724/2021. Since the investigation is completed and charge sheet is already filed, detention of the petition in custody is not required for any purpose and the same would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. 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.

¶22

Learned counsel further submitted that earlier, the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.4420/2021 before this court, which came to be dismissed for default and the said petition was not considered on merits. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶23

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Initially, FIR was registered against 6 to 7 unknown persons.

¶24

¶25

C.Ws.1 and 2 have specifically stated that, 6 to 7 unknown persons covering their faces with masks, kidnapped them in their car to an isolated place and after assaulting them, snatched their mobile and chains. C.Ws.1 and 2 have also stated that they notice that cash of Rs.1 crore was missing, which was kept in the car. A sum of Rs.20 lakhs was recovered from the present petitioner whereas Rs.2 lakhs was recovered at the instance of accused No.1. Except accused Nos.1 and 2 all other accused are absconding. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

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

¶27

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of

¶28

bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?

¶29

My answer to the above point is in the “Affirmative” for the following:

¶30

¶31

REASONS

¶32

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though FIR was registered against unknown persons, it is stated that during the investigation, victims have identified accused No.1 in the Test Identification Parade. Even

¶33

though accused No.2 who is the petitioner herein was not identified, it is stated that he is the conspirator to the offence. Prima facie materials are placed to show that an amount of Rs.20 lakhs was recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. From these materials on record, it cannot be concluded at this stage that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. But, admittedly, investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. It is also not in dispute that accused No.1 is already enlarged on bail by this court. I do not find any reason to refuse extending of the benefit of parity to the present petitioner. His detention in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. The apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP that he may commit similar

¶34

¶35

offence or he may threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses could be taken care off by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed.

¶38

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in crime No.60/2021 of Hunsur Police Station, Mysore City, 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

¶39

jurisdictional court, subject to following conditions:

¶40

i. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶41

ii. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper prosecution witnesses.

¶42

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

¶43

iv. If in case, the Investigation officer seeks the presence of the petitioner for further investigation on apprehending the co-accused,

¶44

¶45

he is at liberty to secure the presence of the petitioner.

¶46

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the trial court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶47

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the trial court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address 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.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

MBS/-

Khairule Bhasheer @ Bhasheer v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khairule Bhasheer @ Bhasheer 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

Mr.Bineesh Kodiyeri Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri. K.L. Subhash Vs Smt. H.P. Vasanthi

Sri Kirana @ Kiran Vs State of Karnataka

Irfan @ Chota Irfan Vs the State through

Rahul S/O Ashok Honnalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Annappa Vs State of Karnataka