Jaffer Sadiq @ Thimma Vs the State of Karnataka

JAFFER SADIQ @ THIMMA, S/O LATE DADAPEER, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT BOMMANAKATTE, APPAJI EXTENSION, HIRIYUR POST, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT – 577 101

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NARASIMHARAJAPURA POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST – 577 101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13603 CRL.P No. 1449 of 2026

HC-KAR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BANGALORE - 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B LAXMAN., HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN THE CRIME NO.64/2025 REGISTERED BY THE NARASIMHARAJAPURA POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 310(2), 311 OF BNSS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT AT CHIKKAMAGALURU IN SC NO.160/2025 ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS DEEMS FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13603 CRL.P No. 1449 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioner/accused No.4 is before this Court

¶31

seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.64/2025 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 310(2) and 311 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶32

Factual matrix of the case:

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint came to be registered by the complainant alleging that the accused persons by making preparations to commit dacoity, took the car from accused No.2 bearing its registration No.KA-49/M-7171, which was left for repair and also a car bearing registration No.KA-19/P-6236, which was left for sale along with three children in conflict with law. Accused No.1 took one long sword, one iron pipe and roller club. On 22.07.2025, left Bhadravathi at about 04.45 a.m., waiting near N.R.Pura-Shivamogga Main Roads. At the time, the complainant came from N.R.Pura in a pickup vehicle bearing registration No.KA-14/C/6478 along with Dharshan and Abhishek. It is further stated that

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13603 CRL.P No. 1449 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the accused have parked their two cars across the road and stopped the vehicle of the complainant. The accused No.2 on the premise of asking spanner, took the key of the vehicle of the complainant, accused No.1 took sword, the child in conflict with law Shrikanth took iron pipe, then the complainant and one Abhishek started running away towards forest. The accused No.4 took 2 boxes of chicken and kept it in their car and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences by showing iron pipe and told them to take away their pickup vehicle. A complaint came to be registered against eight unknown persons. The respondent-Police after registering the case, conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

¶37

Heard Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel

¶38

for the petitioner and Sri. B. Laxman, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent.

¶39

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent of the alleged

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13603 CRL.P No. 1449 of 2026

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

offences, he has not committed any offences as alleged in the said complaint, no Test Identification Parade has taken place. Nothing has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner herein. The petitioner is the only member of the family and he is the permanent resident of Bommanakatte, Bhadravathi Taluk. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶43

Per Contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent vehemently submitted that the petitioner is also one of the associates of the person who committed robbery and dacoity. The petitioner has committed theft of Rs.2,00,000/- and 2 crates of chicken. Since the petitioner is the part of the gang, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. If the petitioner is granted bail, there may be chances of committing similar offences. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13603 CRL.P No. 1449 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶47

respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the charge sheet, which would indicate that the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 and others committed robbery of the pickup vehicle of the first informant. The role of the present petitioner is that he and others had committed theft of two crates of chicken from the pickup vehicle of the complainant. However, there is no Test Identification Parade conducted to demonstrate that the present petitioner was there in the said group. Having considered the said aspect, it is appropriate to grant him bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the petitioner.

¶48

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶51

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be

¶52

enlarged on bail in Crime No.64/2025 of respondent-police for the offence under

¶53

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:13603 CRL.P No. 1449 of 2026

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Sections 310(2) and 311 of the Bharatiya

¶56

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to

¶57

the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶58

(iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor

¶59

hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶60

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before

¶61

the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶62

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in

¶63

any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶64

In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.

¶65

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶66

NR/-

Jaffer Sadiq @ Thimma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaffer Sadiq @ Thimma v. the 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

Girish Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ravikumar Vs State by Arehalli Police Station

Mantu Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Sakeeb@ Sakeeb @ Panipuri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. R. Srirama Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Abdul Aseer @ Abdul Asser @ Saddu @ Sadu @ Maya Vs State of Karnataka