Allowed

Imran Khan a 2 v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2023CRL.P/713/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that continued custody was not warranted as the charge sheet was filed and no custodial trial was necessary, imposing strict conditions to address prosecution apprehensions.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail subject to execution of a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, regular court attendance, and stringent conditions against tampering with witnesses or leaving

Imran Khan a 2 Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 713 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 713 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

IMRAN KHAN A-2, S/O IMRAN PASHA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT 9TH CROSS, MOHAN KUMAR AKKIYAPPA GARDEN, YASHWANTHPURA, BENGLURU - 560 018.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUDHA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

ABDUL @ ABDUL SAHIL A-3, S/O RAHAMATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT IMRAN KHAN'S HOUSE, 7TH CROSS, MOHAN KUMAR AKKIYAPPA GARDEN, YASHWANTHPURA,

¶11

BENGLURU - 560 018.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M R, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY YASHWANTHAPURA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 713 of 2023

¶18

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V S, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.37779/2022 (CR.NO.298/2022) OF YESHWANTHAPURA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 109, 120B, 504, 307 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE XXIV A.C.M.M COURT AT BENGALURU.

¶22

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

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard Sri. Manjunath M. R., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶25

Present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶26

“ Wherefore , the petitioners above named most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to release the petitioners on bail in Crime No.298/2022 now its C.C. No.37779/2022 of

¶27

3 - CRL.P No. 713 of 2023

¶28

Yashwanthpura Police Station Bengaluru, registered for an offence punishable under Section 109, 120(B), 504 and 307 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code which is pending before XXIV ACMM Court at Bengaluru that for the reasons stated above in the ends of justice."

¶29

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶30

A complaint came to be lodged by Sri. Nisar Ahmed Khan S/o. Mahaboob Khan with Police Station on 11.09.202. The Yeshwanthapura Police have registered a case in Crime No.298/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) against the petitioners and others.

¶31

Gist of the complaint averments reveals that on account of talks of matrimonial alliance between the Adnan Ahamed and D/o Rizwan, who had love affair, there was a rift. In that regard, first accused Faizal had attempted to take away the life of Adnan Ahamed and assaulted with the Machet on

¶32

neck. On receipt of the information, the complainant and others rushed to the spot and took him to M. S. Ramaiah

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 713 of 2023

¶35

Hospital in an Auto Rickshaw. While so shifting the injured to the hospital, injured has revealed the incident and a complaint came to be lodged.

¶36

After registering the case, police thoroughly investigated the matter inter-alia arrested the present petitioners and others in the case and filed the charge sheet.

¶37

The attempt made by the petitioners to obtain an order of grant of bail was turned down by the LXI Additional City Civil Sessions Judge: Bengaluru City in Crl. Misc. No.1233/2022 by order dated 29.12.2022. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶38

Sri. Manjunath M.R., learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently contended that the present petitioners are in custody since 08.09.2022 and since the charge sheet is filed and there is no specific overt-acts of assault as against the present petitioners, he sought for grant of bail. He also pressed into the service the order granted by this Court for the co-accused in Crl.P. No. 10190/2022 and sought for grant of bail on that ground as well.

¶39

5 - CRL.P No. 713 of 2023

¶40

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader however opposes for grant of bail contending that the present petitioners had also accompanied the Fizal, who in fact assaulted the injured with Machet and injured has sustained grievous injuries and therefore present petitioners are also liable as the prosecution has also invoked Section 34 of IPC in the matter and sought for rejection of the bail.

¶41

He also contended that CC TV footage collected by the Investigation Agency clearly establishes the presences of the present petitioners at the spot and sought for rejection of the bail.

¶42

In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶43

Admittedly, from the complaint averments it is clear that it is the accused No.1, who has assaulted the injured with Machet and the allegations as against the present petitioners are that they have assisted and abetted the incident.

¶44

Since the charge sheet is filed and the materials on record clearly discloses that it is the accused No.1, who assaulted the injured with Machet, this Court is of the

¶45

6 - CRL.P No. 713 of 2023

¶46

considered opinion that continuation of the accused petitioners in the judicial custody is no longer warranted nor this is a case where custodial trial is utmost necessary in view of the absence of any criminal antecedents insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

¶47

Further, the apprehensions expressed by the prosecution can be met with by imposing stringent and suitable conditions.

¶48

Accordingly, this Court passes the following:

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶51

Each of the petitioners-accused shall execute a 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 trial Court;

¶52

Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly;

¶53

Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly;

¶54

Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission;

¶55

¶56

CRL.P No. 713 of 2023

¶57

Petitioners shall not indulge in similar activities.

¶58

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.

¶59

Ordered accordingly.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Imran Khan a 2 v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Khan a 2 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

Naveen Purushotham Vs State of Karnataka

Prathap Singh @ Prem Bahaddur Khatri Vs State of Karnataka by

Shivaraju @ Shivu Vs the State of Karnataka

Amtur Raphe Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rajesh Mesta @ Rajesh Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Thimmappa Poojary Vs the State of Karnataka