Allowed

Mohammed Hussain v. State by Madivala P.S.

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2022CRL.P/216/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the plea despite the petitioner being a repeated offender for theft. The Court granted bail subject to personal bond, non-tampering with witnesses, appearance in court, restricted movement, and liberty to the State to seek bail cancellation upon re-offence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed bail subject to personal bond with sureties, appearance in court, non-tampering of witnesses, and State liberty to cancel bail on re-offence.

Mohammed Hussain Vs State by Madivala P.S. — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H P SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.216/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMED HUSSAIN S/O SYED NAZIM @ MOHAMMED NAZIM AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.37/1, 9TH MAIN 3RD CROSS, YARAB NAGAR, B.S.K. 2ND STAGE BIDARAHALLI, BANASHANKARI BANGALORE-560070.

¶9

.. PETITIONER

¶10

(By SRI V.LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY MADIVALA P.S. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA COMPLEX BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.165/2021 REGISTERED BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 379, 413 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.165 of 2021 of Madiwala Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 413 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

The factual matrix of the case is that the motorcycle belonging to the first informant was subjected to theft. The petitioner and other minor boys who were juvenile offenders were found near the said motorcycle and the petitioner was apprehended. On coming to know about committing of theft, recovery is also made. Based on the complaint, the police have registered case for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 413 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner does not possess the vehicle which was the subject matter. Although the petitioner was found along with juvenile offenders near the vehicle where the same was parked, a false case has been registered against him only.

¶24

Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent – State would submit that the petitioner had indulged in committing of theft of motorcycle and there were 5 cases registered against him for committing the same offence and he is a habitual offender and if he is enlarged on bail, there is possibility of he committing the same offence.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and also taking note of the averments made in the complaint and also the circumstances under which the case was registered against the petitioner and in view of the fact that there were 5 cases registered against the petitioner in 2021 itself for theft and similar offences by invoking Section

¶26

¶27

379 IPC and having taken note that the petitioner is aged 19 years and is indulged in alleged act of committing theft of two wheelers, this Court can safeguard the interest of the prosecution by imposing conditions that if the petitioner commits similar offence in future, the respondentState can seek for cancellation of bail against the petitioner and hence taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the nature of the allegations and also the circumstances that the case has been registered against him, he may be enlarged on bail with certain conditions.

¶28

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.165 of 2021 of Madiwala Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 413 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶33

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

¶34

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶35

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶36

(v) The respondent- State is given liberty to seek for cancellation of bail in case if the

¶37

petitioner commits similar offence in future.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

Rsk/

Mohammed Hussain v. State by Madivala P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Hussain v. State by Madivala P.S.

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

Sri. Mahesh M S Vs the State of Karnataka S H O

Rahul Reddy @ Chilla Rahul Reddy Vs State of Karnataka by

Sathish @ Sathya @ Kaduppa Vs State of Karnataka

Shankara Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramanji Vs State of Karnataka

Ashis Vs State by Channapatna Town P.S.