Allowed

Amir Khan @ Papu v. State by Kuthnoor P S

Karnataka HC26 Mar 2021CRL.P/7947/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru allowed a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail for offences under Sections 307, 332, and 353 of the IPC involving violence against police, marking attendance with police, and not leaving jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon execution of a bond for Rs. 2,00,000 and two sureties, subject to specific conditions.

Amir Khan @ Papu Vs State by Kuthnoor P S — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7947/2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

AMIR KHAN @ PAPU, S/O LATE FAYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: POULTRY BUSINESS, R/AT NO.21, RUSSELL MARKET, OPP. BEHIND O.P.H. ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 051.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI ANEES ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE BY KUTHNOOR P.S., BENGALURU – 560 077, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.78/2019 OF KOTHANUR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 353, 332, 307 OF I.P.C.

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the Government

¶18

Pleader.

¶19

The petitioner has claimed bail for second time in connection with Crime No.78/2019 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 332, 353 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application in Criminal Petition No.3275/2020. A submission was made by the counsel for the petitioner in that petition that he might be granted liberty to approach the Sessions Court and accordingly the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Now it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the bail application was moved before the trial court, and the same having been rejected, the petitioner is before this court again.

¶20

: 3 :

¶21

The allegations against the petitioner are that he is involved in many criminal cases of decoity, kidnap and murder. On 23.06.2019 when the police went in search of the petitioner, they got information that the petitioner was available within the jurisdiction of Puttur Police Station. At about 2.30 p.m. when they confronted the petitioner and tried to stop his vehicle, he drove his vehicle towards Doddagubbi. When he was about to be apprehended, the petitioner removed a knife that he was having and then inflicted injuries to Police Inspector by name Laxmikantayya.

¶22

In the order of the trial court, it is stated that the injury that the police inspector suffered was on his left hand and it was simple in nature. If this being the nature of the injury and if a case came to be registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., it may be stated that the allegations made against him need to be looked with askance. Added to this, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been

¶23

: 4 :

¶24

filed. In this view, I don’t think that there is any impediment for granting bail. Hence the following:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(a) Petition is allowed.

¶27

(b) 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.

¶28

The petitioner is also subjected to the following conditions: (i) He shall not threaten the witnesses and make any attempt to destroy the evidence.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

Violation of any of the conditions will be seriously

¶34

viewed for cancellation of bail.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

CLK

Amir Khan @ Papu v. State by Kuthnoor P S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amir Khan @ Papu v. State by Kuthnoor P S

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

Muneer Vs State by

Mr. Arunmanoraj R Vs State of Karnataka

R. Vishwanath @ Vishwa Vs State of Karnataka