Disposed¶64

Mohammed Razin @ Razek v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Sept 2025CRL.P/4910/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail cancellation upheld; Section 482 Cr.P.C petition disposed; NDPS Act Sections 8(c) 21(b) MDMA crystals pills case Spl.C.No.18/2022 Mangaluru; exemption application rejected; Non-bailable warrant issued and recalled; Crl.Misc.1070/2022 bond forfeiture penalty quantification; no show cause notice contention; accused absent hear before charge; seizure worth Rs.6,500; High Court of Karnataka; Justice J.M.Khazi; decision 02-09-2025.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with observations: in Crl.Misc.1070/2022 the petitioner may justify his absence and seek a lenient view on penalty, which the trial Court shall appreciate, quantify and proceed with; accused No.3 shall appear before the trial Court and secure bail if not already done, and the trial Court shall take a lenient view in granting bail. ¶64

Mohammed Razin @ Razek Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court's order dated 16.11.2022 in Spl.C.No.18/2022 - rejecting the petitioner's exemption application, cancelling his bail bond and registering Crl.Misc.1070/2022 against him and his surety - was sustainable, the petitioner contending it was passed without assigning reasons and without show cause notice to him or his sureties. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

In Crl.Misc.1070/2022 the petitioner is at liberty to justify his absence and seek a lenient view on penalty; the trial Court is directed to appreciate the reasons so assigned, quantify the penalty and proceed with the matter.

¶63

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner/accused No.3 and other accused were not regularly attending the Court, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the exemption filed by petitioner/accused No.3 and cancelling his bail.

¶62

Key takeaways

Accused No.3 shall appear before the trial Court and secure bail, if already not done so, and the trial Court shall take a lenient view in granting bail.ratio¶70

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (J.M.Khazi, J.) disposed of a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed by accused No.3 (Mohammed Razin @ Razek) in Spl.C.No.18/2022 - an NDPS Act Sections 8(c) & 21(b) MDMA case before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru - challenging the trial Court's order dated 16.11.2022 rejecting his exemption application, cancelling his bail bond and registering Crl.Misc.1070/2022 against him and his surety for bond forfeiture. Noting liberal exemptions, a recalled Non-bailable warrant and the petitioner's continued non-attendance (including non-compliance with the attendance direction imposed while granting stay), the Court held the trial Court was justified in rejecting the exemption and cancelling bail, and disposed of the petition directing that in Crl.Misc.1070/2022 he may justify his absence and seek leniency on penalty, to be appreciated and quantified by the trial Court; he must appear and secure bail afresh, with the trial Court to take a lenient view in granting it.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34256 CRL.P No. 4910 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4910 OF 2023

¶8

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MOHAMMED RAZIN @ RAZEK S/O MOHAMMED RAFIQ AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT 2-109, GANADABETTU, KANNURU MANGALURU, D K DISTRICT-575 007

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶17

(BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE

¶20

FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

¶21

DATED 16.11.2022 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.18/2022 ON THE FILE

¶22

OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANGALURU.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC:34256 CRL.P No. 4910 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶27

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Petitioner who is accused No.3 before the trial Court has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, challenging the order dated 16.11.2022 in Spl.C.No.18/2022 on the file of Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, by which bail granted to him came to be cancelled and Crl.Misc.1070/2022 came to be registered against him and his surety.

¶31

In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that a charge sheet came to be filed against him and 2 other accused in Spl.C.No.18/2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) 21(b) of NDPS Act. He was released on bail on 29.07.2021. Whenever he

¶32

remained absent, he filed exemption application. On 06.07.2022 also, exemption application was filed.

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34256 CRL.P No. 4910 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

However, the trial Court rejected the same and ordered for

¶36

issue of Non-bailable warrant against accused No.1 and petitioner and the same is challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

¶37

The impugned order is opposed to principles of settled law. No reasons are assigned for canceling the bail bond and issue of warrant. No show cause notice was issued either to the petitioner or his sureties and hence the petition.

¶38

Heard arguments and perused the records.

¶39

Petitioner before this Court is accused No.3. A

¶40

charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that on 05.02.2021 at 5.00 p.m on receipt of credible information regarding sale of MDMA crystals and MDMA pills in auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA19/AD-0981, complainant after securing permission from his superior officer, along with CWs-2 to 9 proceeded to the spot. Accused Nos.2 and 3 managed to run away.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:34256 CRL.P No. 4910 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Accused No.1 was apprehended and from his possession

¶45

MDMA crystals weighing 0.76 gms and MDMA pills weighing 1.13 gms, totally worth Rs.6,500/- were seized.

¶46

After conducting detailed investigation, charge

¶47

sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 3. They have secured bail. The order sheet reveal that several adjournments have been granted for hear before charge and every hearing day, one or the other accused have remained absent. In fact the trial Court has exempted their presence liberally. On 06.09.2022, again accused Nos.1 and 3 remained absent. Since, there was no representation for them and no exemption was sought, Non-bailable warrant came to be issued against them. On the next date of hearing, they appeared and on the basis of application filed on their behalf warrant came to be recalled. Once again on 16.11.2022, petitioner/accused No.3 remained absent. This time, the trial Court rejected his exemption application and by observing that he is the habit of keeping away from the Court proceedings, his bail

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:34256 CRL.P No. 4910 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

bond came to be cancelled and Crl.Misc.No.1070/2022

¶52

came to be registered against him and his surety.

¶53

In the present petition, petitioner/accused No.3 has challenged the said order. Perusal of the order sheet clearly indicates that the trial Court has liberally granted exemption and in fact it has also recalled Non-bailable warrant issued against the accused persons. On account of one or the other accused remaining absent, the trial Court could not proceed with the matter and ultimately, took coercive steps of canceling the bail of petitioner/accused No.3.

¶54

In the Crl.Misc.1070/2022, registered against petitioner/accused No.3 and his surety, the trial Court would issue show cause notice as to why the bond amount shall not be forfeited by way of penalty. Even though while

¶55

granting stay, this Court directed petitioner/accused No.3 to attend the Court proceedings without fail, it appears

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:34256 CRL.P No. 4910 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

that he has not complied with the said condition and there

¶60

is no progress in the case.

¶61

Having regard to the fact that the

¶62

petitioner/accused No.3 and other accused were not regularly attending the Court, the trial Court was justified in rejecting exemption filed by petitioner/accused No.3 and canceling his bail. Of course in Crl.Misc.1070/2022, he

¶63

is at liberty to justify his absence and seek lenient view to be taken with regard to imposition of penalty. In such an event, the trial Court is directed to appreciate the reasons so assigned and quantify the penalty and proceed with the matter.

¶64

With this observation, the petition stand

¶65

disposed of.

¶66

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail.

¶67

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:34256 CRL.P No. 4910 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Accused No.3 shall appear before the trial Court and secure bail, if already not done so. The trial Court shall

¶71

take a lenient view in granting bail.

¶72

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶73

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 16.11.2022 in Spl.C.No.18/2022 rejecting the petitioner's exemption application, cancelling his bail bond and registering Crl.Misc.1070/2022 against him and his surety.¶30
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru · 16.11.2022
Prior proceeding
On 05.02.2021 at 5.00 p.m., on credible information of sale of MDMA crystals and MDMA pills in auto rickshaw No.KA19/AD-0981, the complainant (with CWs-2 to 9) proceeded to the spot; Accused Nos.2 and 3 managed to run away.¶40
Prior proceeding
Accused No.1 was apprehended and MDMA crystals weighing 0.76 gms and MDMA pills weighing 1.13 gms, totally worth Rs.6,500/-, were seized from his possession.¶45
Prior proceeding
A charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioner and 2 other accused in Spl.C.No.18/2022 for offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act.¶31
Prior proceeding
The petitioner was released on bail on 29.07.2021.¶31
Prior proceeding
After detailed investigation the charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3, all of whom secured bail.¶46
Prior proceeding
Order sheet showed several adjournments for hear before charge with one or the other accused absent every hearing day; the trial Court had exempted their presence liberally.¶47
Prior proceeding
On 06.09.2022 accused Nos.1 and 3 again remained absent without representation or exemption; a Non-bailable warrant was issued against them.¶47
Prior proceeding
On the next date of hearing they appeared and the warrant was recalled on the basis of an application filed on their behalf.¶47
Prior proceeding
On 16.11.2022 petitioner/accused No.3 again remained absent; the trial Court rejected his exemption application, observing he was in the habit of keeping away from Court proceedings, cancelled his bail bond and registered Crl.Misc.No.1070/2022 against him and his surety.¶47
Prior proceeding
While granting stay, this Court had directed petitioner/accused No.3 to attend Court proceedings without fail; he apparently did not comply and there has been no progress in the case.¶55

Mohammed Razin @ Razek v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Razin @ Razek v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Santosh T.C., Vs the State of Karnataka

Muneer Ahammad Vs Nouseena

A Vishal Jain Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mehul Vs Sri Harish.M

Chethankumar R Vs Smt Chaitra J

Shri Padam Kumar Jain Vs the State of Karnataka