Dismissed

Imran Khan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2022CRL.P/9115/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed an anticipatory bail petition. The court held that the petitioner's consistent conduct of absconding since the date of the offence was fatal to the application, rendering it devoid of merits, and directed the petitioner to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; Petitioner directed to surrender before Sessions Judge.

Imran Khan Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9115/2022

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

IMRAN KHAN S/O MOHAMMAD KHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O #1334/1, 3^rd MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, KTJ NAGARA, DAVANGERE-577002. ….PETITIONER

¶6

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

¶7

AND:

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION, CHANNAGIRI.

¶9

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶10

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.123/2022 OF CHANNAGIRI P.S., DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 114, 307, 448, 504, 506, 109 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT CHANNAGIRI IN C.C.NO.937/2022 AND ETC.

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner–accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.123/2022 of Channagiri Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 114, 307, 448, 504, 506, 109 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent–State. Perused the records.

¶16

The brief factual matrix leading to the case

¶17

are that the present petitioner is accused No.1 and there were certain matrimonial disputes between the complainant and his wife and a panchayath was held thrice but the panchayath could not give any verdict.

¶18

¶19

It is further alleged that as such, the wife of the complainant, her sister and the in-laws used to regularly quarrel with the complainant. According to the prosecution, on 23.03.2022 at mid night 00.20.00 hours, the present petitioner along with others knocked the door of the house of the complainant and when the door was opened, the petitioner trespassed in the house and when the complainant went there and enquired, the petitioner attempted to assault his neck by knife. Then the others present there caught hold of the petitioner and knife was taken away. Thereafter, the petitioner tried to throttle the neck of the complainant and again, he was rescued. It was alleged that the petitioner was threatening the complainant by asking him to pay a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- to his wife and get the matrimonial dispute settled, otherwise, he was not going to spare him. Thereafter, he went outside of the house and

¶20

¶21

tried to kidnap the complainant in the car and when the neighbours gathered, he fled from the spot. In this regard, the complaint came to be lodged. The petitioner was all along absconding and the Investigating Officer after investigating the matter submitted the charge sheet against the present petitioner and others. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and his bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been laid down and presence of the petitioner for any further interrogation is not necessary. He would also contend that the knife alleged to have been used is already recovered and the petitioner is a respectable person in the locality and if he is taken into custody, his reputation is likely to be affected considerably. He would also undertake

¶23

¶24

to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and hence, he would seek for admitting him on anticipatory bail.

¶25

Per contra, the learned HCGP would

¶26

contend that the main allegations were directed against the present petitioner and specific overt-act is alleged against him. She would also contend that initially, he has filed an anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Judge which was rejected and again subsequently, he filed the second bail petition after submission of the charge sheet which was also rejected, which is evident from the reasoning given in para-14 of the order of the learned Sessions Judge. She would contend that the petitioner is all along absconding and he has not co-operated in the investigation and as such, the learned HCGP would seek for rejection of the bail petition.

¶27

¶28

Having heard the arguments and perusing

¶29

the records, it is evident that the alleged knife said to

¶30

have been used for commission of offence is recovered immediately by the police under the mahazer but it is a fact that the main allegations were directed against the present petitioner. Specific overtact is alleged against the present petitioner in respect

¶31

of he attempting to assault on the neck of the complainant by using the knife and then, attempting to throttle his neck. The records further disclose that initially, he has filed a bail petition during the crime stage before the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail and the same was rejected. Subsequently, he has filed the second anticipatory bail before the learned Sessions Court after submission of the charge sheet and the same was rejected on the ground that he is absconding all along and specific overt-act were alleged against him. The

¶32

¶33

records further disclose that the petitioner is all along absconding from the date of offence. No doubt, it is asserted that accused Nos. 2 to 11 have been granted bail but the complaint allegations specify the specific overt-act as against the petitioner and the role of the other accused compared to the present petitioner is entirely different. Hence, granting of regular bail or anticipatory bail to the other accused is not a ground of parity for the present petitioner while considering his anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court regarding the wound certificate wherein it is referred that he suffered blunt injury. Merely because of the complainant has suffered simple injury, is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, looking to his conduct in absconding all along from the date of commission of the offence. His reputation is

¶34

¶35

not a ground for admitting him on anticipatory bail as there cannot be any discrimination in this regard.

¶36

Looking to these facts and circumstances of the case and considering the conduct of the petitioner in absconding all along, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail at this stage. His remedy is to surrender before the learned Sessions Judge and he can request for expeditious disposal of the bail petition and it is for the investigating officer to decide whether supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. can be filed or not.

¶37

Under these circumstances, the petition

¶38

being devoid of any merits and does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

JS/-

Imran Khan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Khan 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

The Regional Manager Vs Sandhya

Mr Sunil Alias Sundili Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Rizwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rajina Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narrendra D Devanga Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Murali K M Vs State of Karnataka