The Karnataka High Court dismissed the bail petition of an accused charged with double murder, holding that his unexplained absence for nearly twelve years after securing bail made him unfit for further release.
The criminal petition for regular bail is dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.857 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
IQLAK QURESHI S/O. SRI ILYAZ QURESHI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR ETTIGE FACTORY, KHADAR HOUSE, KOGILE BADAWANE, YALAHANKA, BANGALORE CITY – 560 064.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAUSHAD PASHA, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY TILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE – 560 041, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.34 OF 2007 (C.C. NO.17729 OF 2008) OF THILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 120B AND 506B OF THE IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 25 OF THE ARMS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by accused No.17 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting regular bail in C.C. No.17729 of 2008 pending on the file of the XXXVI A.C.M.M. at Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 506B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered by Thilaknagar Police Station.
the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3
15-2-2007, a case has been registered against the accused persons for committing the double murder. After registering the case, the Police arrested this petitioner along with other accused persons. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court and he has been released on bail. After releasing from the jail, the petitioner absconded from 5-9-2008. Therefore, case against this petitioner was split up. Sessions case No.18 of 2009 registered against other accused persons came to tried and accused Nos.6, 7 and 9 to 15 were acquitted. Since this petitioner was absconding, he has been arrested on 8-8-2020 and was remanded to judicial custody. He approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.
that the petitioner was not aware about the date of hearing. Since from seven months, he is in custody and is
4
ready to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5
not secured, in spite of issuing Non-Bailable Warrant and issuing proclamation and attachment. The petitioner was absconding for almost twelve years and the Police are successful in arresting the petitioner only on 8-8-2020. The case is pending before the Magistrate for almost thirteen years and if the petitioner is granted bail, there is every chance of the petitioner escaping from the clutches of the law. Further, there is no sufficient ground made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner what was the reason for abscondance of the petitioner for almost twelve years. Therefore, it is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioner once again. The petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
kvk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner who absconded for almost twelve years after obtaining bail.
Whether sufficient ground was made out by the petitioner for his unexplained absence of nearly a decade.
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for grant of bail considering the pendency of the case and risk of further absconding.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Iqlak Qureshi
State represented by S.P.P.
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
