Allowed

Nisar Ahmed v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024CRL.P/13362/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in NDPS trial challenged cancellation of his bail for absence on a hearing date. High Court held no speaking order or show cause notice was issued despite counsel appearing with an exemption application, set aside the cancellation and restored bail.

What did the court decide?

Order cancelling bail and directing separate miscellaneous case set aside; bail restored to petitioner.

Nisar Ahmed Vs the State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:392 CRL.P No. 13362 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13362 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NISAR AHMED

¶8

S/O LATE M.H.MOHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 33 YEASR, R/AT: JAMADHIGUDDA HOUSE, B-MOODA GRAMA, BANTWALA TALUK, MANGALURU, D.K DISTRICT - 574 219.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BY, ECONOMIC AND NARCOTIC CRIME POLICE STATION, MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2023 PASSED BY THE PRL.DISTRICT JUDGE, MANGALURU D.K DISTRICT IN SPL.C.NO.188/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) OF NDPS ACT ON THE FILE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:392 CRL.P No. 13362 of 2023

¶20

OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE ABOVE CASE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 for cancellation of bail granted to him and ordered to register separate miscellaneous case against the petitioner and his surety.

¶24

Heard the arguments of learned counsel fro the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶25

The case of the petitioner is that he is facing trial before the Sessions Judge in Special Case No.188/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act. He has been granted bail by the Sessions Judge on earlier occasion and he was continuously on bail, one time he remained absent and NBW has been recalled. Subsequently, the petitioner was absent on 19.09.2023 and the counsel was represented. Application for exemption was filed which was

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:392 CRL.P No. 13362 of 2023

¶28

dismissed and bail has been cancelled by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶29

Having heard the arguments, on perusal of the records, which reveals, of course, the petitioner was continuously present on all the dates of hearing except on 28.07.2023, he remained absent, hence, NBW has been issued. Subsequently, on 23.08.2023, the NBW has been cancelled by the same judge by imposing Rs.200/as penalty. Subsequently, the case was adjourned to 19.09.2023 where again the petitioner remained absent. However, the counsel filed application for exception under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. which came to be rejected and bail has been cancelled. Though the Trial Court cancelled the bail and ordered to register a separate Miscellaneous case, there is no speaking order for what purpose the bail has been cancelled. Even though, an advocate was appeared and exemption application was also been filed. Before canceling the bail, the Trial Court ought to have issued a court notice to the surety show causing why the surety shall not be forfeited and also the Court could have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner-accused as to why his bail should not be cancelled for his remaining absent. But

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:392 CRL.P No. 13362 of 2023

¶32

without assigning any reason and issuing any show cause notice, bail has been cancelled by the Trial Court. Merely the petitioner was absent when the counsel was represented and filed exemption application. Such being the case, I am of the view that the order passed by the Trial Court is illegal and committed error in canceling the bail without giving any show cause notice. Therefore, the order of the Trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed .

¶35

The order of Trial Court for canceling the bail and ordered

¶36

to issue separate miscellaneous case is hereby set aside.

¶37

The bail is restored to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is directed not to remain absent from the case hearings and shall cooperate with the Court for speedy disposal.

¶38

If the petitioner remained absent, then the Trial Court is at liberty to issue show cause notice and then cancel the bail order, if required.

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:392 CRL.P No. 13362 of 2023

¶41

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2023 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT:SK

Nisar Ahmed v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Ahmed 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

Mr Santosh Hipparagi Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha Police

Piyush Singh Alias Prince Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Deepa P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sanay R Vs the State of Karnataka

Robin Khandelwal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Murali Nayak Vs State of Karnataka