Dismissed

Sri. Mohammed Faisal, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2024CRL.P/1786/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner, an accused in a criminal case alleging attempted murder, chilling injuries and assault. The court held that granting bail would amount to a mockery of judicial process given the petitioner's conduct of absconding and non-cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; directed to surrender before the concerned court.

Sri. Mohammed Faisal, Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:14312 CRL.P No. 1786 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1786 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MOHAMMED FAISAL, S/O MOHAMMED ASLAM, ABUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, 2^ND CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, SEETHAPPA LAYOUT, CHAMUNDI NAGAR,R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. B. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by BY POLICE INSPECTOR, SOWMYA DLocation: High HEBBALA POLICE STATION, Court of Karnataka BENGALURU, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMANA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.260/2023 OF RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307, 323, 504 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, 1860 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:14312 CRL.P No. 1786 of 2024

¶17

ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section

¶21

438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.260/2023 of Hebbala Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 594 r/w. 34 of IPC, pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution discloses that, on

¶23

09.11.2023 at 7.00 p.m, when the complainant was in GYM situated near Acharya College and working out, at that time, Accused No.1 who is the brother of the petitioner, mocked and laughed at the complainant and when the complainant questioned the same, then exchange of words were taken place between them. Then Accused No.1 threatened the complainant stating that, he will get his brother ie., Accused No.2/petitioner herein and then the present petitioner came there along with Accused

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:14312 CRL.P No. 1786 of 2024

¶25

No.3 and started assaulting the complainant on his stomach and kicked him and also by using knife, stabbed the complainant on his neck causing bleeding injuries. Then Accused Nos. 1 & 3 have also abused the complainant in filthy language and Accused No.3 assaulted the complainant by bike key and caused injuries. When other persons, who were present in the GYM intervened, the petitioner and other accused fled from the spot. The complainant was shifted to the hospital and then he lodged a complaint in this regard. On the basis of this complaint, FIR came to be issued.

¶26

The records further disclose that the petitioner,

¶27

who was arraigned as Accused No.2, has initially approached the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. No.11534/2023 seeking anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 07.12.2023 has rejected the said bail petition on the ground that the main allegations were directed against the present petitioner and he is absconding all along.

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:14312 CRL.P No. 1786 of 2024

¶29

From the records it is also evident that, all along the petitioner did not co-operate with the Investigating Agency and was found absconding. Hence, the Investigating Officer has submitted the charge sheet showing the petitioner as absconding. Both Accused Nos. 1 & 3 were arrested and remanded to custody and were subsequently enlarged on bail. But the present petitioner, who is arraigned as Accused No.2 is all along absconding.

¶30

Now again he has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. The records also disclose that all along the petitioner is absconding and he never co-operated with the investigation. The allegation of the prosecution discloses that, overt act is mainly directed against him, as he first assaulted the complainant by knife and he himself is absconding all along. The offence is said to have taken place on 09.11.2023 and even then for nearly more than 4 to 5 months, the petitioner is absconding. Considering the conduct of the petitioner in absconding, question of he seeking anticipatory bail does not arise at all, as it

¶31

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:14312 CRL.P No. 1786 of 2024

¶32

amounts to mockery of judicial process. The presence of the petitioner is required for recovery of material objects by interrogation and mere submission of charge sheet does not conclude the investigation and the Investigating Officer has got right to submit a supplementary charge sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. Under such circumstances, considering the conduct of the petitioner, this is not a fit case, wherein discretion can be exercised in fvour of the petitioner and his remedy is to surrender before the concerned Court. Hence, this petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for consideration

¶33

and accordingly, it stands dismissed .

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

KGR

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri. Mohammed Faisal, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohammed Faisal, 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 T R Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Prathap B R Vs State by Karnataka by Vijayanagara Police Station

Akheb Aalam @ Shekh Akheeb Aalam Vs State by Mandya Women Police

Mohammed Juber and Juber Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narayanaswamy M Vs State by Karnataka

Imran Vs the State of Karnataka