Dismissed

Wahid Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Nov 2021CRL.P/8387/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail for two accused charged with theft. Rejecting arguments of innocence, the court held that subsidiary evidence suggested involvement in multiple vehicle-related offences and absconding, creating a danger of witness tampering and further crimes.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.8387/2021 was dismissed, denying bail to the petitioners accused in theft and robbery charges.

Wahid Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8387/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

WAHID PASHA S/O MR.ASGAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS PRESENTLY R/AT 9TH CROSS 9TH MAIN, NEW GURAPPANAPALYA BENGALURU PREVIOUSLY R/AT NO.744/746 6TH CROSS, AHAMED NAGAR GANGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU

¶9

AFROZ S/O MR.SYED ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT 2ND CROSS, C BLOCK SABASHNAGAR, SINGASANDRA BENGLAURU ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NATARAJU.T: ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIWALA POLICE STATION BENGALURU NOW REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

...RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. H.S.SHANKAR: HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.137/2021 REGISTERED BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 379,392,413 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.137/2021 registered by Madivala Police Station, pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 392, 413 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶19

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

¶20

the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶21

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that the

¶23

complainant-P.Vinay Kumar has filed a complaint before the police on 14.09.2021, alleging that Auto bearing No.KA-01-AD-6500 was parked by the driver on 09.09.2021 and on the next day when they went to the work said Auto was stolen. Subsequently, the complaint was registered and during investigation the petitioners were apprehended by the police on 04.10.2021 and since then, they are in judicial custody. After the investigation, the petitioners have moved their bail petition before the Sessions Judge, which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. They have been falsely implicated in the case. They are ready to abide by any

¶25

¶26

conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting of bail.

¶27

Per contra , learned High Court Government

¶28

Pleader seriously objected for granting of bail and contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, they may tamper the prosecution witnesses and cause similar offences. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.

¶29

Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusal of the records, it reveals that though the complaint filed for missing of Auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AD-6500, subsequently, after apprehending the petitioners it was revealed that there were 11 vehicles were seized, two wheelers as well as three wheelers apart from so many mobile phones from the petitioners. The offences

¶30

¶31

alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment and triable by Magistrate. Looking to the case of the prosecution it reveals that they are involved in many other cases and accused Nos.4 to 6 were still absconding. Such being the case, if bail is granted to the petitioners there is every possibility of committing similar offences, absconding from the case, delaying the process and tampering the prosecution witnesses is not ruled out. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for bail. Hence, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The criminal petition is dismissed .

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

SKS

Wahid Pasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wahid Pasha 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

Kumar @ Vijayanand R Vs State by

Nawaz Ulla Khan @ Asif Vs State O F Karnataka

Sri Ravi Kanth Jetty Vs State of Karnataka

Akshay Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sayed Riyaz Vs the State of Karnataka

Karthik Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka