Dismissed

Salman Khan @ Sallu v. State by

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2023CRL.P/809/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka rejected a criminal bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner had been accused of snatching a Mangalya chain while acting as a habitual offender. The Court upheld its rejection of a previous similar petition due to the recovery of stolen items at the petitioner's instance and pending antecedents, refusing to re-appreciate evidence.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition is rejected. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible.

Salman Khan @ Sallu Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 809 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 809 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN : SALMAN KHAN @ SALLU S/O AFROZ KHAN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO. 1828, NEAR ADAM KHAN MASQUE 3^RD CROSS, HULLINA BIDI K R MOHALA MYSORE - 570 002 PRESENTLY R/AT HUJ CAMP, 3RD CROSS, NEAR BELLAHALLI CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE NAGAR BANGALORE - 560077

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND : STATE BY NARASIMHARAJA PS MYSORE REP BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE - 560001 (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶11

…RESPONDENT

¶12

¶13

CRL.P No. 809 of 2023

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.169/2021 OF NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 392, 413 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶18

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court that on 23.08.2021 at about 10.45 a.m., when the complainant-CW1 was proceeding by walk near Rajendranagar, this petitioner along with another accused person came in a motorcycle and snatched the Mangalya chain weighing 60 grams worth of Rs.2,40,000/- of the complainant and thereafter, this petitioner and accused No.2 partitioned the said chain

¶19

into half each and half of the chain which was in the custody of this petitioner was recovered and accused No.2

¶20

3 - CRL.P No. 809 of 2023

¶21

had sold the remaining half of the chain to accused No.3. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet against this petitioner along with other two accused persons.

¶22

This petitioner, earlier, approached this Court in Crl.P.No.4253/2022 and the same was rejected vide order dated 24.05.2022 on the ground that recovery was made at the instance of this petitioner and also the prosecution given the details of 16 cases against this petitioner and he is a habitual offender and and if he enlarged on bail, he may commit the similar offences.

¶23

Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and brought notice of this Court to the evidence of PW1 who contended that there are contradictions with regard to the seizure is concerned and

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 809 of 2023

¶26

also the counsel would submits that the seizure witness has not supported the case of the prosecution who has been examined as PW7. Hence, prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶27

Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the State would vehemently contend that the witnesses who have been examined before the Trial Court have supported the case and there was a recovery at the instance of this petitioner and PW7 who is the seizure witness also supported the case of the prosecution stating that the article which was sold to accused No.3 was recovered in his presence. Hence, it is a matter of appreciation by the Trial Court and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶28

In reply to the arguments of the counsel for the State, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only there are 9 cases and out of that, this petitioner has been acquitted in 3 cases and remaining 6 cases are under trial and bail has been granted in other cases also and hence, this petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶29

¶30

CRL.P No. 809 of 2023

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

respective parties and perused of the material available on record. Taking into note of the earlier order passed by this Court wherein this Court rejected the bail petition on merits since there was a recovery at the instance of this petitioner and apart from that this Court comes to the conclusion that he is a habitual offender and there are 16 cases against this petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are only 9 cases out of that in 3 cases, the petitioner has been acquitted and not disputes the other cases. This Court cannot sit and appreciate the evidence available on record. The learned HCGP submits that PW1 and PW7 have supported the case of the prosecution and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are material contradictions but the same cannot be appreciated by this Court by usurping the power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C and the Trial Court has to appreciate the evidence on record. Hence, I do not find any grounds to enlarge the petitioner on bail exercising the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 809 of 2023

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, I pass

¶36

the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The bail petition is rejected.

¶39

The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as

¶40

early as possible.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Salman Khan @ Sallu v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman Khan @ Sallu v. State by

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

Jogaiah Vs Krishnappa

Basavegowda Vs N M Prakash

Nethravathi Vs Nagarajagowda

Josephraj @ Joseph Vs the State by

R Sridhar Vs Sri M S Srikrishna

R Sridhar Vs Srikanth Raj G R