Dismissed

Syed Jabi Ulla @ Shameer @ Imran v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2022CRL.P/8705/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka rejected bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for three accused charged with dacoity. The court held that recovery of deadly weapons at the scene and prior convictions for theft made them unfit for bail.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected and the petitioners are not enlarged on bail.

Syed Jabi Ulla @ Shameer @ Imran Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8705 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SYED JABI ULLA @ SHAMEER @ IMRAN S/O SYED MUNAVEER AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶9

RESIDING AT BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 091 AND ALSO R/O BOMMANAKATTE VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI,

¶10

SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT.

¶11

ABDUL REHMAN @ ABDUL S/O KAAMAL PASHA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O PARVEEJ AHMED, NEAR JAMIA MASZID 4TH CROSS, ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD HEGGANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶12

SYED AFRID @ AFRID S/O SYED ASHIF AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR HASSAN BAKERY ANDHRAHALLI MAIN ROAD HEGGANAHALLI,

¶13

¶14

BENGALURU-560 091. (ALL ARE IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) AND ALSO AT R/O NEAR OLD MAZID PALIBETTA, VIRAJPET KODAGU.

¶15

… PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. RUDRAPPA.P FOR SMT. ASHA.K., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

… RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶21

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.366/2022 of Madanayakanahally P.S., Bengaluru city for the offence punishable under Section 399,402 of IPC on the file of the Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC., at Nelamangalal and etc.,

¶22

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

¶25

Nos.1,3 and 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging them on bail in Madanayakanahally Police Station in Crime

¶26

¶27

No.366/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

¶28

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

¶29

that on intervening night of 28.07.2022 and 29.07.2022 at about 2.05 a.m., the complainant PSI got credible information that near Gayathrinagar curve on SondekoppaMallasandra Road, 4 to 5 persons had assembled there by holding deadly weapons by parking a Tata Ace vehicle, waiting to commit a dacoity. It is also alleged that then complainant along with his staff arrived to the spot at 3.25/3.35 a.m and they apprehended the present petitioner and other two accused and in the presence of the panchas seized Long, iron rod, knife, club and chilly powder as well as Tata Ace vehicle bearing No. KA 01 AA 9583 used for commission of the offence. Then the petitioners were produced before the learned Magistrate and they were remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners have filed regular bail petition before the

¶30

¶31

learned Sessions Judge and their bail petition came to be

¶32

rejected. Hence they are before this Court.

¶33

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-

¶34

State and perused the materials on record.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶36

contend that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and there are no eye witnesses and further he would contend that they are in custody since last three months. As such, he would seek for admitting them on bail.

¶37

Per-contra the learned HCGP would contend that

¶38

the material objects such as Long, iron rod, knife, chilly power and club were seized from the custody of the petitioners at the spot and they are habitual offenders being involved in similar two cases for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and as such, he would contend that in this case they are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses

¶39

¶40

and jumping on bail. Hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition.

¶41

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that in the early morning on 29.07.2022 at 3.25 a.m the complainant has apprehended the present petitioners when they are alleged to have made preparation for committing a grievous offence and after apprehending them, he has seized long, iron rod, knife, club and chilly power from their custody. Though the learned counsel for petitioners contend that these material objects were planted in this case in order to fix the petitioners in this case, there is no material evidence placed to substantiate the said defence.

¶42

Prima-facie, it is evident that the deadly weapons were recovered from the custody of the petitioners. There is no explanation forthcoming from petitioners as to why they were present at spot in odd hours with deadly weapons at the spot.

¶43

¶44

Apart from that, it is also evident that the

¶45

petitioners were involved in Crime Nos.268/2022 and 371/2022 for similar offences. It Prima-facie establishes that they are habitual offenders. Looking to these facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case in admitting the petitioners on bail at this juncture. Hence, petition is devoid of merits and needs to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition is rejected .

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Syed Jabi Ulla @ Shameer @ Imran v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Jabi Ulla @ Shameer @ Imran v. the 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

Shek Ahammed Vs State by Doddapete Police Station

Sri Raviraj Shetty R Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Pramod M Vs State by Alanahalli Police Station Mysore

Sri. Shashank Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Arun Kumar K v Vs State of Karnataka