Allowed

Nayazulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2022CRL.P/1360/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in a case involving attempted robbery and snatching. The court held that despite the petitioner being an absconding accused, the lack of an issued proclamation warranted bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in the event of arrest, subject to surrender within ten days, executing a bond of Rs. 2 Lakhs with two sureties, and complying with other conditions.

Nayazulla Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1360/2022

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

NAYAZULLA S/O FAYAZ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO. 183, 4^TH CROSS VELUR SHED, JAMAPURA BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577301

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI A N RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOPPA POLICE REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN RESPECT OF CRIME NO.73/2019 REGISTERED BY THE KOPPA POLICE STATION, CHICKMAGALUR, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 392, 393, 398 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 192 OF INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLES ACT AND ETC.

¶15

¶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 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.73/2019 registered by the Koppa Police Station, Chickmagalur, for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 393, 398 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 192 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner along with the other accused person came in a motorcycle and stopped the motorcycle and accused No.2 who was sitting behind this petitioner pretended that he was asking the route to go to Shringeri and when he gave the information, immediately he was pulled down from the motorcycle and made an attempt to snatch the money and threatened with iron rod as well as

¶21

¶22

machete and when CW5 heard the screaming sound, he came out and noticed that some unknown person had snatched motorcycle key from CW1 and thrown the same. Based on the complaint, at the first instance, the case was registered against three unknown persons and after the investigation, at the time of filing the charge sheet, this petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.3.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that no proclamation was issued against this petitioner and there is no criminal antecedents against this petitioner and the only allegation against this petitioner is that he made an attempt to commit the alleged offence hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that this petitioner was absconded hence, his name is shown as absconded accused at the time of filing the charge sheet and also the counsel not disputes the fact that no proclamation is issued and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶25

¶26

Having heard the respective counsel appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the material available on record it discloses that the allegation against this petitioner is that he made an attempt to commit the alleged offence and he was absconded but the fact is that there is no proclamation issued against him. When such being the material on record and also taking the gravity of the offence and the nature of the offence alleged in the charge sheet, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶28

following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶31

petitioner/accused No.3 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.73/2019 registered by the Koppa Police Station, Chickmagalur, for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 393, 398 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 192 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶34

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶35

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Nayazulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayazulla 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

Nagesh G C @ Nagesh Reddy Vs State by

Lawrence @ a. Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Veerabhadra Swamy S @ Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nithin Subbaiah B C Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shankara M Vs State of Karnataka

Prithviraj S K Vs State of Karnataka