Allowed

Mohammed Sarim Khan @ Guddu v. the State

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024CRL.P/5640/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.7 in a fourteen-accused charge sheet for theft from a Tumakuru jewellery shop sought regular bail after his Sessions Court bail plea was dismissed. The court noted doubtful recovery panchanama, absence of prior record and custody exceeding 11 months, and enlarged him on bail under conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to Rs.2,00,000 bond with two local sureties, regular attendance, no witness tampering, no similar offences, and furnishing contact details.

Mohammed Sarim Khan @ Guddu Vs the State — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43173 CRL.P No. 5640 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5640 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MOHAMMED SARIM KHAN @ GUDDU S/O LATE ALTAF KHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KAKRALA DANTHAGANJ TALUQ BADAUN, UTTAR PRADESH - 243 637.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHANDRASHEKARA PURA POLICE STATION REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANNAPPA EERAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.87/2023 OF CHANDRASHEKARAPURA P.S., TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUS/ 380,457,120-B OF IPC AND SEC.25(1AA) AND 27(2) OF ARMS ACT NOW PENDING IN C.C.NO.33/2024 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT GUBBI.

¶16

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:43173 CRL.P No. 5640 of 2024

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Accused No.7 in S.C.No.125/2024 pending before the

¶22

Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru arising out of Crime No.87/2023 registered by Chandrashekarapura Police Station, Tumakuru District for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 457, 120B of IPC & Section 25(1AA) & Section 27(2) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 is before this Court seeking regular bail.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶24

parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.87/2023 was registered by

¶26

Chandrashekarapura Police Station, Tumakuru District initially for the offences punishable under Sections 380 & 457 of IPC against 6 to 7 unknown persons, on the basis of first information dated 13.10.2023 received from Mohanlal S/o Jesaram. During the course of investigation,

¶27

the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.11.2023. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed against fourteen

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:43173 CRL.P No. 5640 of 2024

¶30

accused persons. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No.7 in the charge sheet.

¶31

The bail application filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.489/2024 was dismissed on 28.03.2024. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶33

submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is in custody for the last more than 11 months. The alleged offences are neither punishable with death or life imprisonment. Though the stolen articles are allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner, a reading of recovery mahazar makes the recovery very doubtful. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶34

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the

¶35

petition. He submits that the petitioner is a part of gang, which had committed the alleged offences and the accused persons including the petitioner hail from Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, it would be difficult to trace him, in the event

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:43173 CRL.P No. 5640 of 2024

¶38

he is enlarged on bail. He submits that the petitioner is involved in another case registered by the very same Police Station in Crime No.88/2023 for similar offences. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶39

A perusal of the material on record would go to show that, on the intervening night of 12.10.2023 and 13.10.2023 the first informant, who is the owner of the jewellery shop namely Bhavani Jewellery shop in Tumakuru had received a censor call on his mobile phone from the alarm, which was installed in his jewellery shop and therefore he immediately called his friends and police and informed them about receipt of censor call. Thereafter, he along with his friends and relatives went

¶40

near his jewellery shop and found that the shutter of the jewellery shop was cut open with the help of gas cutter and accused persons had entered into the jewellery shop and committed theft of gold jewellery and other valuables from the shop. On verification from the CCTV installed in the jewellery shop, it was found that about 6 persons who

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:43173 CRL.P No. 5640 of 2024

¶43

were wearing mask and hand gloves had entered the jewellery shop and committed theft of gold jewellery and other valuables from the shop.

¶44

During the course of investigation, the

¶45

petitioner and other persons have been arrested. At the instance of the petitioner and other accused, who were arrested, recovery of 13 silver ornaments was done from the house of Munesh Babu in Allapur, Badayi District, Uttar Pradesh and the total weight of seized silver ornmanets is 12 kg 650 grams. The recovery panchanama would go to show that, panch witnesses to the panchanama hail from Gubbi taluk, Tumakuru District. In the recovery mahazar it is stated that, the investigating officer had summoned the panch witnesses to Chandrashekarapura Police Station and thereafter had taken them in a jeep to the house from where seizure has been done. The seizure is said to have been done at Badayi district, Uttar Pradesh and the police have not secured any local panchas.

¶46

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:43173 CRL.P No. 5640 of 2024

¶47

Undisputedly, the petitioner has no other

¶48

criminal antecedents. The other criminal case registered in Crime No.88/2023 by the very same Police Station is after registration of present case and the allegation in the said case is that accused persons in the present case had also attempted to commit theft in another nearby jewellery shop. The alleged offences are neither punishable with death or life imprisonment. The petitioner is in custody from 15.11.2023 onwards. Apprehension of the learned HCGP can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions on the petitioner. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively.

¶49

10. Accordingly, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.125/2024 pending before the Court of VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru arising out of Crime

¶52

¶53

NC: 2024:KHC:43173 CRL.P No. 5640 of 2024

¶54

No.87/2023 registered by Chandrashekarapura Police Station, Tumakuru District for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 457, 120B of IPC & Section 25(1AA) & Section 27(2) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, subject to the following conditions:

¶55

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two local sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶56

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶57

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶58

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶59

¶60

NC: 2024:KHC:43173 CRL.P No. 5640 of 2024

¶61

e) The petitioner shall furnish his mobile

¶62

phone number and also his address proof to the

¶63

SHO of Chandrashekarapura Police Station and also to the Trial Court.

¶64

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶65

NMS

Mohammed Sarim Khan @ Guddu v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Sarim Khan @ Guddu v. the State

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

Abu Sulaiman Mandal Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitesh Ranjan Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Ravindra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Prasanna R Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr. G. Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Rangaswamy. S Vs State of Karnataka