Dismissed

Syed Parveez v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023CRL.P/827/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Hawk Court rejected a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by a petitioner charged with robbery (IPC 392). The court held that despite the seizure of stolen gold, the petitioner's status as a habitual offender with 38 pending cases made bail unjustified, directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is rejected; the accused is to remain in custody, and the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

Syed Parveez Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 827 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 827 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SYED PARVEEZ AGED 27 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED YUSUF, R/AT NO.31, 3^RD CROSS, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, GURAPPANAPALYA, BENGALURU-560029

¶9

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

ALSO AT NO.25, RAVI HOUSE, NEAR PATALAMMA TEMPLE, KULUVANAHALLI GRAMA THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU-562 123.

¶11

(BY SRI. ABISHEK N N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGLAURU DISTRICT-560 001 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI.S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 827 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE CR.NO.153/2022 OF THILAKNAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.392 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri N.N.Abhishek, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishwamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶23

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

¶24

“Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to release the petitioner/Accused on regular bail in Crime No.153/2022, Dated: 19/07/2022, pending at XXXVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 827 of 2023

¶27

Sections 392 of Indian Penal Code registered by the Thilak Nagar police, i.e., Annexure-A, in the interest of justice.”

¶28

The petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal

¶29

Code. Initially, a complaint came to be lodged by one Sri Kishore, S/o late Nagaraj, with Thilaknagar Police, which was registered in Crime No.153/2022 on 19.07.2022.

¶30

The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the petitioner has robbed the gold ornaments. Police were able to seize the gold ornaments from the custody of the accused and the same is also produced before the Court.

¶31

After filing the charge sheet, the attempt made by the petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail is turned down by the learned District Judge, Bengaluru, in C.Misc.No.10773/2022 by order dated 08.11.2022.

¶32

Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 827 of 2023

¶35

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the charge sheet is filed and gold ornaments are already seized from the custody of the petitioner, continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted nor it is a case for custodial trial and sought for grant of bail.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is an habitual and as many as 38 cases are pending against him and therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶37

In view of the rival contentions, this Court perused the material on record.

¶38

Admittedly, the gold ornaments are seized from the custody of the petitioner to the tune of 29 gms. Admittedly, petitioner is a coolie and has no explanation whatsoever insofar as the possession of the gold ornaments weighing 29 gms.

¶39

5 - CRL.P No. 827 of 2023

¶40

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that continuation of the present petitioner in custody is no longer warranted, as the seizure of gold ornaments has already taken place. But the fact remains that the petitioner is an habitual, as is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader and he is involved in as many as 38 cases. Enlarging the petitioner on bail, therefore, is not warranted and injurious to the society at large.

¶41

Accordingly, without expressing further opinion

¶42

on the merits of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly sufficient to admit the petitioner on bail by resorting to the special

¶43

powers vested with this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Hence, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The criminal petition is rejected.

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 827 of 2023

¶48

Since the accused is in custody from July 2022,

¶49

the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial

¶50

and conclude the same as early as possible.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

JT/-

Syed Parveez v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Parveez 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 Harisha Vs the State by

Gowrisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharath a P @ Sharu Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Harisha Vs the State by C N Halli Police Station

Infanulla R Vs the State of Karnataka