Dismissed

Ashraf v. State by Moodabidre Police

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2022CRL.P/1009/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the criminal petition filed by the petitioner, accused No.4, seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences of robbery and conspiracy. The Court held that no changed circumstances existed after the rejection of a previous bail petition and denied bail due to the seriousness of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was denied and the criminal petition was dismissed by this Court.

Ashraf Vs State by Moodabidre Police — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1009/2022

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

ASHRAF S/O ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.237, PERLAGUDDE HOUSE PERDAY VILLAGE AND POST BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574236

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI:MOHAMMED TAHIR - ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE BY MOODABIDRE POLICE REP BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX OPP TO VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. V.S VINAYAKA - HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.79/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 395, 397, 120B, 114, 212 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, MOODBIDRI, DK.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner accused No.4 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in Cr.No.79/2021, registered at Moodbidre Police Station, pending in C.C.No.924/2021 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidre, Dakshina Kannada for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 120B, 114, 212 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant.

¶20

Heard Sri.Mohammed Tahir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.S.Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. Perused the materials on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being accused No.4 had filed

¶22

Crl.P.No.6350/2021 before this Court for grant of bail. The said petition came to be dismissed on merits vide order dated 27.09.2021. In the said case, learned HCGP submitted that

¶23

¶24

the petitioner is having criminal antecedents as ten more criminal cases are registered against him. On verification, it was found that the petitioner is falsely implicated in all cases. There is no recovery at the instance of the petitioner. There is no identification of the petitioner by the victim. Since the investigation is already completed, the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. There are no changed circumstances to consider the petition. In the earlier petition filed by the petitioner, the Court has considered the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the petition. Considering the seriousness of the offences and the conduct of the petitioner as he is having criminal antecedents, the petitioner is not

¶26

¶27

entitled for grant of bail and accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶28

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

¶29

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶30

for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶31

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶32

R E A S O N S

¶33

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.6350/2021 before this Court, on similar ground. This Court considered the said petition on merits and rejected the same on the ground that serious allegations are made against the petitioner and other accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 that they were armed with talwar, club and chilipowder and waylaid the motorcycle of the informant and assaulted and robbed cash and other valuables. The contention taken by the learned

¶34

¶35

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not identified by the victim during test identification parade was turned down by this Court on the basis of statement given by the victim that he had deliberately not identified the accused out of fear and he identified the accused in the police station on seeing the photographs. Even though accused Nos.6 and 7 were enlarged on bail, the benefit of parity cannot be extended to the petitioner considering the seriousness of the allegations made against him and also in view of the criminal antecedents, as it is stated that other criminal cases are also registered against him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and is falsely implicated in all the cases, cannot be appreciated at this stage. Similar petition filed by the petitioner has already been rejected on merits. No changed circumstances are forthcoming to re-consider the petition of the petitioner once again.

¶36

In view of the above, this petition is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Ashraf v. State by Moodabidre Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf v. State by Moodabidre Police

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

Laxman Vs the State

Mohammed Irfan @ Chapper Irfan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vanajakshi Vs State of Karnataka by

Raghava M Vs the State of Karnataka

Abhishek N @ Abhi @ Kalla Abhi Vs State of Karnataka

Balakrishna v Vs State of Karnataka