Allowed

Mohammed Usman, v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024CRL.P/5359/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed bail to the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 307 and 504 IPC. The court noted it was a counter-case scenario with simple injuries and no further investigation needed, ruling that continued detention infringed statutory rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on obtaining bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties subject to conditions not to commit offences, tamper with witnesses, and appear as required.

Mohammed Usman, Vs State of Karnataka by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21901 CRL.P No. 5359 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5359 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MOHAMMED USMAN, S/O LATE SADIQ PASHA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT #4/57, 15^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN, LAKKASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 030

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY, ADUGODI POLICE STATION REP. BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.108/2024 REGISTERED BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307, 504, 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶18

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21901 CRL.P No. 5359 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner- accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC in Crime No.108/2024 of Adugodi Police Station, pending on the file of the learned 39^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 504 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informantSri Humayun Khureshi.

¶22

Heard Sri Afroz Pasha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶23

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶24

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶25

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC?”

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:21901 CRL.P No. 5359 of 2024

¶28

R E A S O N S

¶29

Petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of

¶30

bail. He was apprehended on 15.05.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. It is stated that accused No.2 is already enlarged on bail.

¶31

The informant lodged the first information making specific allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 504 of IPC.

¶32

It is noticed that accused No.2 herein lodged the first information against the complainant and others, which is registered in Crime No.107/2024. Therefore, it is a case and counter case registered against one another. Admittedly, the injured sustained simple injuries. The accused in the counter case is already granted bail. It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation. Under such circumstances, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21901 CRL.P No. 5359 of 2024

¶34

is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed.

¶38

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.108/2024, Adugodi Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶39

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶40

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

¶41

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court

¶42

as and when required.

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:21901 CRL.P No. 5359 of 2024

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Mohammed Usman, v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Usman, v. State of Karnataka by

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 Adesh K a Alias Adesh Gowda Vs State by Sringeri Ps

Sri. L. S. Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. L. S. Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Chandramohan K G Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Syed Sameer Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka