Allowed

Shek Ahammed v. State by Doddapete Police Station

Karnataka HC20 Oct 2022CRL.P/5679/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed this criminal petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail for Accused No. 2 in a dacoity case where he had previously absconded and was arrested on warrant. Relying on parity with another co-accused who was granted bail in a similar set of circumstances, and noting the original case ended in acquittal, the Court granted bail subject to a person

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to executing personal bond of Rs. 2 Lakhs with one surety, paying 20% of earlier bond, producing beforehand, paying 20% of earlier bond amount, and complying with c

Shek Ahammed Vs State by Doddapete Police Station — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5679/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SHEK AHAMMED, S/O MUKTHIYAR AHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O. 4TH CROSS, ILIYAS NAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. K.V.SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE BY DODDAPETE POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. REPRESENTED BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPLICATION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.86/2022 (CRIME NO.206/2016), ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT SHIVAMOGGA, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 399 AND 402 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, REGISTERED BY DODDAPETE POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA AND DIRECT THAT THESE PETITIONER BE RELEASED ON BAIL.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2

¶18

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.206/2016 registered by Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge in S.C.No.86/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

¶19

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complaint was registered suo-moto by the Police on 13.07.2016 alleging that when the complainant was on patrolling duty along with his official staff at about 5.10 am at N.T.Road auto stand they apprehended the present petitioner along with other accused as they were hatching plan to commit dacoity armed with deadly weapons in an open space situated at Om Shakthi Temple situated at Manjunatha Badavane. Thereafter, mahazar was conducted by the complainant and he has also seized

¶20

material objects. When the accused were produced

¶21

¶22

before the concerned Court and they are remanded to judicial custody and case was registered in C.C.No.892/2017. Subsequently, the present petitioner was granted bail but as he absconded the case against him was split up and he was secured under warrant and as such he is in custody. It is also asserted that the original case ended in acquittal and now he is languishing in custody since 03.04.2021 and hence, it is sought for admitting him on regular bail.

¶23

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

¶24

counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondentState and perused the materials on record.

¶25

Having heard the arguments and perused the

¶26

records it is evident that the petitioner was shown to be absconding in his split up case. Initially he was arrested and enlarged on bail but as he jumped on bail the case against him was split up. Subsequently, his presence was secured and now he is moving regular bail. The learned Sessions Judge has already rejected the bail, but

¶27

¶28

it is also evident from the record that original case has ended in acquittal, the material witnesses were already examined in the original case and there is no question of tampering the prosecution witnesses. No doubt the petitioner has violated the bail condition imposed earlier and penalty can be imposed on him for violation of the earlier bail condition. Apart from that it is also evident that in similar circumstances accused No.5 was granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.7666/2022 and on the ground of parity the present petitioner is also entitled for bail. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused

¶31

No.2 is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.206/2016 of Doddapete Police Station, Shivamogga registered for the offence punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC, which is pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga in SC

¶32

¶33

No.86/2022, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to the following conditions that,-

¶34

(i) He shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities

¶35

(ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶36

(iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court, without prior permission

¶37

(iv) He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

¶38

(v) He shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter.

¶39

(vi) He shall pay 20% of the earlier bond amount which he had executed before the trial Court when he was released earlier and his release in this case is subject to collecting 20% of the bond amount.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

GPG

Shek Ahammed v. State by Doddapete Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shek Ahammed v. State by Doddapete Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagadeesha Vs H P Manjegowda

National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri. Jagadeesha

Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Venkatesh S Vs State of Karnataka

Shashikumar @ Jinke Vs State of Karnataka

Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka