Allowed

Imran @ Twist Imran v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2024CRL.P/9288/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Successive bail petition by accused No.6 in a Sections 302/149 IPC case. Earlier petitions were rejected; liberty was reserved to reapply after material witness examination. Eye witnesses CWs.2 and 3 did not place him at the spot. The High Court allowed bail with conditions including bonds, non-tampering and periodic reporting.

What did the court decide?

Accused No.6 ordered released on bail in crime No.140/2022 on Rs.2,00,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including no witness tampering and fortnightly reporting.

Imran @ Twist Imran Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41849 CRL.P No. 9288 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9288 OF 2024 (439(Cr.PC)/ 483(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

IMRAN @ TWIST IMRAN S/O LATE MUSTHAF, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, AUTO-RICHSHAW DRIVER, R/O 1^ST CROSS, NEAR KESHAVA BAKERY, MANJUNATHA BADAVANE, SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577201. (PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. TIGADI VEERANNA GADIGEPPA., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DODDAPETE POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP.)

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.119/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:41849 CRL.P No. 9288 of 2024

¶17

SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 143,147,148,149,302,114,120B OF IPC IN CR.NO.140/2022 REGISTERED BY THE DODDAPETE POLICE, SHIVAMOGGA.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6

¶22

under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS' for short) seeking

¶23

grant of bail in crime No.140/2022 registered by Doddapete Police Station and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 120B and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:41849 CRL.P No. 9288 of 2024

¶27

3. Brief facts leading to this case are that:

¶28

one Masood Ahammed lodged complaint to the police

¶29

on 20.03.2022 alleging that there was previous enmity between the petitioner/accused No.6 and his brother.

¶30

They used to quarrel for petty issues and on 19.03.2022, he got the information from CWs.2 and 3 that his brother was seriously injured and shifted to the hospital. Immediately he went to the hospital, where his brother was declared as dead. On enquiry with CWs.2 and 3, it is informed by them that accused Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 12 along with two juvenile offenders committed the murder of his brother on 19.03.2022 at 10.30 p.m. On the basis of the voluntary statement of the co-accused persons, this petitioner/accused No.6 is arrested on 20.03.2022 and was remanded to the judicial custody.

¶31

Earlier, this petitioner/accused No.6 approached

¶32

this Court on several occasions in Crl.P.Nos.7063/2022, 814/2023 and 4625/2023 whereby all the petitions were came to be rejected by this Court for the reasons stated

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:41849 CRL.P No. 9288 of 2024

¶35

therein. Further, this Court has dismissed the bail petition of the petitioner/accused No.6 in Crl.P.No.1400/2024, whereby reserving liberty to the petitioner/accused No.6 to approach this Court after examination of the material witnesses and also directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Hence, the petitioner/accused No.6 has again approached this Court by filing this current petition by urging that during the trial, the material witnesses were examined by the prosecution from PWs.1 to 8.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

¶37

that this Court has dismissed the bail petition filed by this petitioner/accused No.6 in Crl.P.No.1400/2024 vide order dated 06.06.2024 by reserving liberty to the petitioner/accused No.6 to approach this Court after examination of the material witnesses i.e. CWs.2 and 3 who are the eye witnesses to the case on hand and during their chief examination, they have not deposed that on the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:41849 CRL.P No. 9288 of 2024

¶40

alleged day of incident, this petitioner/accused No.6 was not present at the spot and only allegation against him is that he has conspired to murder the deceased and also an abettor for the commission of offence. Hence, he prays for allowing this successive bail application.

¶41

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes to grant bail to the petitioner/accused No.6 and prays to dismiss this successive bail petition.

¶42

Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusal of material on record,

¶43

of course this Court has already rejected the bail petitions of the petitioner/accused No.6 thrice and on the last occasion, the case came to be withdrawn by reserving liberty to the petitioner/accused No.6 to approach this

¶44

Court after examination of material witnesses. The evidence of Cws.2 and 3 are led by the prosecution and both of them have stated that the petitioner/accused No.6

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:41849 CRL.P No. 9288 of 2024

¶47

is not present at the time of incident and this Court has granted liberty as stated above with a direction to the Court to dispose of the case on hand within a period of six months but the Trial has not yet concluded. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner/accused No.6 is granted bail by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The successive bail petition is allowed ;

¶50

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.6 on bail in crime No.140/2022, which is pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, subject to the following conditions:-

¶51

(a) Petitioner/accused No.6 shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:41849 CRL.P No. 9288 of 2024

¶53

(b) Petitioner/accused No.6 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶54

¶55

(d) Petitioner/accused No.6 shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶56

(e) Petitioner/accused No.6 shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days on every 2^nd and 16^th of the Calendar month between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m., till disposal of the matter.

¶57

If any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution

¶58

is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶59

Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶60

SSD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

Imran @ Twist Imran v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran @ Twist Imran v. the 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

Kum Prakruthi J Vs Smt Lakshmi Devi

Purushottham Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Razak Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narahari @ Benaka Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Narayanaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Prime Label Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Kantilal Pukhraj Jain