Allowed

Sri. Shaik Rahil @ Shakil Baig v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024CRL.P/3360/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed by accused No. 2 accused in a case involving offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 148, 307, 384, 323, 504, 506 and 511 of the IPC. The court granted bail on the ground of parity with other accused and on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Sri. Shaik Rahil @ Shakil Baig Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:18998 CRL.P No. 3360 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3360 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: high court of karnataka

¶9

SRI. SHAIK RAHIL @ SHAKIL BAIG, SON OF MOHILUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.37, 8^TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI MAIN ROAD, PADARAYANAPURA BENGALURU - 560 029 AND ALSO, RESIDING AT NO.37/38, 7^TH MAIN, GORI PLAYA, BENGALURU 2. SRI. WASIM AKRAM SON OF ZAHIR AHME, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.17, 7^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, FYAMANNA GARDEN, SETELLITE, BENGALURU - 560 0 RESIDING AT MADRASA KAMMIPURA, KENGERI, SETTELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 0 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GOPI .P.M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDI POLICE MYSURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. (BY SMT. WAHEEDHA .M.M., HCGP)

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:18998 CRL.P No. 3360 of 2024

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.12/2024 OF MANDI P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144, 148, 307, 384, 323, 504, 506, 511 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT MYSURU BY ALLOWING THIS BAIL PETITION. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner - accused No. 2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No. 12/2024 of Mandi Police Station, Mysuru, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 148, 307, 384, 323, 504, 506 and 511 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Mohammed Afsar.

¶17

Heard Sri. Gopi P M, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Waheedha M.M. learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶18

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶19

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:18998 CRL.P No. 3360 of 2024

¶20

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶21

for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶22

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶23

R E A S O N S

¶24

The petitioner being accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 11.03.2024, since then he is in judicial custody. The victim lodged the first information making serious allegations against accused No.1. It is stated that other accused were also there when he was assaulted. Accused No.1 is said to be having deadly weapons with him and committed the offence. The wound certificate produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader for perusal of the Court discloses that there are no external injuries caused but the victim has complained pain at three places and it is of simple in nature. Admittedly, accused Nos.4 and 5 against whom similar allegations are made are already granted bail. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the benefit of parity to the petitioner with that of accused Nos.4 and 5. Even

¶25

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:18998 CRL.P No. 3360 of 2024

¶26

though, it is stated that the petitioner is involved in another case for the offence under Section 307 of IPC, since no specific overt act is alleged against him for the present, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶27

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petition is allowed.

¶30

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 12/2024 of Mandi Police Station, Mysuru, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with

¶31

two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:18998 CRL.P No. 3360 of 2024

¶34

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶35

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶36

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶37

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

SPV

¶40

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Sri. Shaik Rahil @ Shakil Baig v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shaik Rahil @ Shakil Baig 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

Sunita D N Vs State by

Venkataramanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Arunkumar @ Thyape Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Prakasha T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnegowda P K Vs State of Karnataka