Allowed

Umaidh M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023CRL.P/958/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.PC seeking enlargement of bail for offences including criminal conspiracy, rioting, and damaging government property. The court imposed specific financial and behavioral conditions for the bail release.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to payment of bond in five instalments, execution of fresh bond with surety, and adherence to specific conditions including not leaving jurisdiction.

Umaidh M Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 958 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 958 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

UMAIDH M S/O HAMZA MUSLIYAR AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT MUKWAY MANIYA HOUSE NARIMOGARU VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574231.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BARKE POLICE STATION MANGALURU DISTRICT REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI VINAYAKA.V.S, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE CR.NO.5/2018 OF BARKE P.S.,MANGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120B,143,147,148,504,323,324,353,332,427,307 R/W SEC.149,34 OF IPC AND SEC.45 OF KARNATAKA PRISONERS ACT AND SEC.2(b) OF PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 958 of 2023

¶18

PROPERTY ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC VI COURT, D.K., MANGALURU IN C.C.NO.14/2020.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri B.Lethif, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶22

and Sri V.S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶23

This Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.PC. with

¶24

the following prayer:

¶25

“Wherefore, the petitioner most respectively pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to release him on Bail in Crime No.5/2018 (CC No.014/2020) of Barke Police Station for the offene punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 324, 353, 332, 427, 307 read with Sections 149 & 34 IPC and Section 45 of the Karnataka Prisoners Act and Section 2(B) of the Prevention of Destruction and loss of Property Act, pending on the file of JMFC, VI Court, D.K. Mangaluru in the interest of justice.”

¶26

The accused is in custody in Crime No.5/2018 dated

¶27

8.1.2018 of Barke Police Station, Mangaluru City.

¶28

3 - CRL.P No. 958 of 2023

¶29

The attempt made by the petitioner to seek grant of regular bail is turned down by the learned VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in SC No.121/2022 by order dated 19.10.2022 and thereafter, the petitioner is before this court.

¶30

The gist of the complaint averments reveal that on a complaint lodged by the Superintendent of Prison Mangaluru on 8.1.2018 alleging that when the complainant is working as Chief Superintendent of Prison, Mangaluru and near the entrance gate of A and B block at about 5.40 pm., in the visitors room, the prisoners were quarrelled and abused each other by using filthy language and started to damage the articles kept in the office and damaged the plastic items like bucket and drum and other materials and thrown curry to the jail superintendent and caused damage to the extent of Rs.1 lakh. Since the charge sheet is filed, the request of the petitioner can be considered by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

¶31

The material on record also disclose that accused

¶32

has damaged the Government property.

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 958 of 2023

¶35

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶36

has filed a Memo dated 13.3.2023. Memo is placed on record and it reads as under:

¶37

“The petitioner hereby undertakes that petitioner is ready to deposit the bond amount of Rs.50,000/- executed in Crl.Misc. No.349/2018 dated 4.4.2018. Therefore, the petitioner prays that by giving instalment for paying bond amount, petition may be allowed in five instalment and ready to deposit Rs.10,000/- in 1^st instalment within one month and remaining Rs.40,000/- in four instalment within three months.

¶38

Hence, memo may be taken on record in the interest of justice.”

¶39

It is not a case where custodial trial is utmost

¶40

necessary and the apprehension of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions. Accordingly, pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The Bail Petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 958 of 2023

¶45

(1) The petitioner shall pay the bond amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- in equal instalment within a period of five months from today.

¶46

(2) The release order of the petitioner shall be issued only after payment of the first instalment.

¶47

(3) The petitioner shall execute a fresh bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶48

(4) The petitioner shall attend the court regularly.

¶49

(5) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mangaluru, D.K. District without prior permission.

¶50

Violation of any of the above conditions, would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

PL*

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Umaidh M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umaidh M 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

Sri. Umar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Ummarkunhi @ Mohammedkunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ummar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Rani Vs State by Banasawadi Police Station

Chikkanarasimhaiah @ Chikkanarasaiah Vs State by Annapoorneshwari Nagar P.S.

Raghu. N Vs the State of Karnataka