Dismissed

Mohammed Irfan @ Chapper Irfan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2022CRL.P/171/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was filed by an accused against whom allegations of robbery and extortion pending. The Court dismissed the petition, rejecting arguments based on acquittal of main accused and lack of evidence, noting prior similar petition was dismissed due to petitioner's absence after initial bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition dismissed; petitioner ordered to remain subject to existing process.

Mohammed Irfan @ Chapper Irfan Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.171/2022

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MOHAMMED IRFAN @ CHAPPER IRFAN S/O MOHAMMED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS C/O FAYAZ, SHADHAB NAGAR D J HALLI BANGALORE – 560045. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI HEMANT KUMAR K B, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY D J HALLY PS. BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE – 560001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI ROHIT B J, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.153/2016 (S.C.NO.1499/2018) OF D J HALLI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 399, 402 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-57).

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner-accused No.4 is before this Court seeking

¶18

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No153/2016 of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant

¶19

Sri H.D.Kulkarni.

¶20

Heard Sri.Hemant Kumar K B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rohit B J, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State. Perused the material on record.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter, without any basis. He was apprehended on 24.06.2016 and since then he is in judicial custody. Learned counsel also submitted that petitioner had filed similar petition in Crl.P.No.4460/2021 before this Court which came to be

¶22

¶23

dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2021. The main accused are already acquitted and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned HCGP opposing the petition submits that initially petitioner was granted bail, but he had subsequently remained absent. Considering the said fact along with seriousness of the offence alleged against the petitioner, Crl.P. No.4460/2021 came to be dismissed. There are no other changed circumstances to consider the case of the petitioner once again. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

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

¶26

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

REASONS

¶31

Admittedly the petitioner had approached this Court

¶32

by filing Crl.P.No.4460/2021 making similar grounds. After considering the contentions of the petitioner, the said petition came to be dismissed on merits. It was noticed that initially petitioner was granted bail and thereafter, he was absconding. His presence was secured only by issuing nonbailable warrant. In the meantime, the Investigating Officer filed split-up charge sheet as per the directions of the learned Magistrate.

¶33

No additional documents are produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to substantiate his contention that the co-accused are already enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to consider the case of the petitioner once again. Hence, I do not find any merits in the petition.

¶34

Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

¶35

brn

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

Mohammed Irfan @ Chapper Irfan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Irfan @ Chapper Irfan v. 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

Chandrakanth Vs the State of Karnataka

Naganath Niranjanappa Shettigar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahesh S/O Dyavappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Abhishek M.B.@Abhishek M.D. Vs the State of Karnataka

Vignesh Vs the State of Karnataka