Allowed

Mohammed Ajaz @ Kerala v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2022CRL.P/37/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition was filed seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was accused of attempted murder and assault on police. The High Court allowed the bail petition, directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond and appearing before the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail in Crime No.68/2021 on a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties for a like sum, subject to undertakings not to tamper with witnesses or leave jurisdiction.

Mohammed Ajaz @ Kerala Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.37/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MOHAMMED AJAZ @ KERALA S/O MAZEED KHAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/O. 2^ND CROSS TIPPUNAGARA, MYSURU ROAD BENGALURU CITY -560018. … PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI SYED RIZWAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI AMEEN AHSAN, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOLAR TOWN POLICE STATION KOLAR DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001 … RESPONDENT

¶11

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

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN (UTP NO.291/2021) CR.NO.68/2021 OF KOLAR TOWN POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 353, 307 R/W. SECTION 35 OF IPC.

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS ‘THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.68/2021 of Kolar Town Police Station, Kolar Town Circle, Kolar, for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

The factual matrix of the case is that, when the police was on patrolling duty on 06.06.2021 in connection with Covid-19 Pandemic, two unknown persons snatched the gold chain from a women and in this regard, case was registered in Crime No.67/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and the police were under the impression that the accused persons, who have committed the offence are between the age group of 20 to 25 years and their description is also

¶19

¶20

given. Accordingly, when the police were doing ghast duty, found two persons in a motorcycle having similar description and when they stopped the motorcycle, the person, who was sitting in front portion of the said motorcycle, tried to gave blow with the dragon, the police escaped from the said blow. The other accused pulled him, as a result, he fell down. Immediately, when his colleague rushed to the spot, they escaped from the spot in the motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-JZ-6102. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case. This petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1 was arrested on 07.06.2021 and the matter is under investigation.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is innocent and he has not indulged in such offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The counsel would also submit that no injury is sustained by the police officials, even though specific allegations are made and no such incident has taken place and no single piece of material available to show that an attempt was made to take away the

¶22

¶23

life and no medical report is placed. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender and four cases are registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC i.e., Crime Nos.21/2021, 28/2021, 67/2021 and 69/2021 and including the present case, there are five cases against him. When an attempt is made to take away the life of the police with the dragon like knife, the complainant escaped from the said blow. Hence, there is a prima facie case against this petitioner.

¶25

Having heard the respective counsel and also taking note of the allegations made in the present complaint, no doubt, it is alleged that he tried to inflict injury with dragon, but, no injuries are sustained. But, the complainant says that he escaped from the said blow. It is also not in dispute that there are four cases registered against this petitioner and all the cases are registered for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. When the matter is under investigation and there are

¶26

¶27

several cases registered for committing similar offence and though the counsel submits that, in all the other cases, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail and having taken note of the gravity of the offence, the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the fact that police officials have not sustained any injury and taking note of similar offences, reserving liberty to the State to seek for cancellation of bail order, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶30

petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime No.68/2021 of Kolar Town Police Station, Kolar Town Circle, Kolar, for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The petitioner shall execute 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 jurisdictional Court.

¶32

¶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) It is made clear that, if the petitioner indulges in committing similar offence in future, liberty is reserved to the State to approach this Court for cancellation of bail granted in favour of this petitioner.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Mohammed Ajaz @ Kerala v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ajaz @ Kerala 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

Kiran Babu S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohana Vs State of Karnataka

H G Naveen Naika @ Bhandary Vs State by Sakarayapatna Police

Mr Syed Mozamel Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraja T M Vs the State by Nandagudi Police Station

Mahesh K N @ Mahesh Nanjundaswami Kargal Vs State of Karnataka