Allowed

Rafeek v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jun 2024CRL.P/5665/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka enlarged two accused on bail in a Section 395 IPC case under Section 439 Cr.P.C., granting parity with a co-accused. Bail was granted subject to a bond of Rs. 2 lakh each, surrender of passports if required, and prohibitions on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on obtaining bond of Rs. 2,00,000 each with two sureties each, subject to specific conditions.

Rafeek Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:23475 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5665 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAFEEK, S/O ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT ABBURU THARIKATTE, BHADRAGOLA VILLAGE PONNAMPET TALUK, SOUTH KODAGU - 571 218

¶9

PRAVEEN KUMAR K.M., S/O K.P. MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT CHENNANGI VILLAGE, CHENNAYANAKOTE POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, S KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SIDDAPURA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 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 CRN.O.20/2022 OF SIDDAPURA P.S., KODAGU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 395 OF IPC ON THE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:23475 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2024

¶20

FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT VIRAJPET KODAGU DIST.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners - accused Nos. 4 and 5 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.20/2022 of Siddapura Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge a& JMFC Court, Virajpet Kodagu District, registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Thangappan K K.

¶24

Heard Sri. Sachin B.S, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23475 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2024

¶27

“Whether the petitioners are entitled

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

R E A S O N S

¶31

The petitioners being accused Nos. 4 and 5 are seeking grant of bail. They were apprehended on 04.05.2024 and since then, they are in judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against three unknown persons for having committed the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. On the requisition made by the Investigating Officer, Section 395 of IPC was included in place of Section 392 of IPC. Later, 'C' report came to be filed. However, a fingerprint was stated to be found in the house of the informant which matched with the fingerprint of accused No.3. On the basis of same, after apprehending accused No.3, his voluntary statement was recorded and the co-accused were also apprehended. It is stated that there is recovery of cash at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 3. Admittedly, there is no recovery at the instance of the present petitioners. It is also admitted that accused No.2

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23475 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2024

¶33

against whom similar allegations are made, but there are no recovery at his instance, was enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2024 in Crl.P.No.5179/2024. Therefore, I am of the opinion that these petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of parity with that of accused No.2. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶34

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

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is allowed.

¶37

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.20/2022 of Siddapura Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

a). The petitioners shall not commit similar offences.

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:23475 CRL.P No. 5665 of 2024

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, 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 petitioners 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 petitioners on bail.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

SPV

¶47

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

Rafeek v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafeek 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 Javaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Narasimhamurthy B G Vs State by

Manoj Kumar R Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh Naika N T Vs State of Karnataka

Yallappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjula Vs State by Bellur Police