Allowed

Noor Eslamansori @ Sanjay v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Jan 2022CRL.A/759/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal filed challenging rejection of bail application. Court allowed bail due to significant delay in trial (witness summons unissued for months) and appellants' residence in West Bengal, imposing strict conditions including weekly police presence reporting and prohibition on leaving jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order setting aside the bail rejection; appellants released on bail upon execution of bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties and complying with strict supervisory conditions.

Noor Eslamansori @ Sanjay Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.759 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Noor Eslamansori @ Sanjay S/o Rujumiya, Aged about 26 years, R/o Sy.No.100, Bharath Chemicals Factory, Bheemanakuppe Cross, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru-560074.

¶8

Suresh Gour S/o Late Sohan Gour, Aged about 26 years, R/at Sy.No.100, Bharath Chemicals Factory, Bheemanakuppe Cross, Kengeri Hobli,

¶9

Bengaluru-560074.

¶10

…Appellants

¶11

(By Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

State of Karnataka by Kumbalagodu Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.

¶14

Smt. Rajmuni Tudu, W/o Sukhilal Soren,

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

Aged about 27 years, R/at NO.1907, 2^nd Main, 2^nd Cross, Kengeri Upanagar, Bengaluru-560060.

¶17

Permanent Address: Nayachak Village, Ramagarh PS Dumka District, Jarkhand-815353.

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for R1; Respondent No.2 - Served)

¶20

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act read with section 439 of CR.P.C. Praying to enlarge the appellant/accused No.1 and 2 on Bail in Cr.No.132/2020 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 342, 506, 376-D of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act registered by the Kumbalagudu Police Station, pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.229/2020.

¶21

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission through video conferencing this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This is an appeal filed under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short), challenging the order dated 22.01.2021 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.1674/2020 rejecting

¶26

their application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Heard Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State. Respondent No.2 has been served with notice, but there is no representation on her behalf.

¶28

The appellants are accused 1 and 2 in Spl.C.No.229/2020, facing trial in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 342, 506 and 376D of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

¶29

On 30.11.2020, this Court dismissed Crl.P.No.4702/2020 preferred by the appellants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., holding that there were prima-facie materials against them. Subsequently, the petitioners approached the trial

¶30

:: 4 ::

¶31

Court by filing Crl.Misc.No.1674/2020 for bail.

¶32

This Criminal Miscellaneous petition was filed after filing of the charge sheet. It appears that one of the grounds taken was delay in commencement of trial. However, the Court below dismissed the bail application of the appellants.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the appellants

¶34

have been in custody since 25.05.2020. The appellants have produced the order sheet of the Court below. Till 26.08.2021, the witness summons had not been issued. On 17.09.2021, witness summons was ordered to CW1 and CW2. The prosecution could not secure their presence. Even now the case has not seen any progress. Now the Court below has ordered warrant to CW1 and CW2. Therefore it is evident that the trial has not commenced. According to submission made by Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, CW1 and CW2 had left Bengaluru and they might have returned to their

¶35

:: 5 ::

¶36

home State i.e., Jarkhand. It is unlikely that there presence will be secured within a short time. If this submission is considered, it may be stated that the trial will not commence in the near future. CW1 and CW2 are the prime witnesses to the prosecution. Having regard to the fact that there is delay in commencement of trial, it is not feasible to keep the appellants in custody.

¶37

It appears that both the appellants are from West Bengal and there are chances that they may return to their home state. Hence, for this purpose, they have to be subjected to stringent conditions. From the above discussions, the appeal has to be allowed. Hence the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Appeal is allowed.

¶40

The order passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, dated 22.01.2021 in

¶41

:: 6 ::

¶42

Crl.Misc.No.1674/2020 on the application of the appellants under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is set aside. The said application is allowed.

¶43

The appellants shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakhs only) and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial court. The appellants are also subjected to following conditions:-

¶44

i. They shall furnish their permanent address proof at Bengaluru; In case there is change in their residence, the same shall be brought to the notice of the SHO of first respondent police station and the trial Court as and when they change their address.

¶45

ii. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court till conclusion of the trial;

¶46

iii. They shall not tamper with the evidence collected by the investigating officer and threaten the witnesses;

¶47

:: 7 ::

¶48

iv. They shall regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of the trial;

¶49

v. They shall mark their attendance in Kumbalagodu police station once in a week, preferably on Sunday between 9 am and 12 noon till conclusion of the trial and confirm their address on each date;

¶50

vi. They shall not get themselves involved in any other criminal case/s in future.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Kmv/-

Noor Eslamansori @ Sanjay v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noor Eslamansori @ Sanjay 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

Sri Chowdesha Vs Sri M Nanjundegowda

Smt R Kalai Selvi Vs Mr Bheemanna

Smt R Kalai Selvi Vs Mr Bheemanna

Sri Vasudev N Vs Smt B Radhakumari

Devendrappa H Vs the State

Mr.Virendra Khanna Vs the State of Karnataka