Mohammed Faraz @ Mental Faraz Vs State of Karnataka

MOHAMMED KHUDRATH S/O LATE ABDUL RAZAK, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.115, 1ST CROSS, KALAK NAGARA, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT. KARNATAKA – 562 117

¶14

(PRESENTLY IN CENTRAL PRISON, MYSURU)

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. MUZAFFAR AHMED., ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13897 CRL.P No. 16437 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER., ADDL. SPP)

¶23

CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NOs.2 TO 4) ON BAIL IN SC.NO.178/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.3/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN NARASIMHARAJA P.S., MYSURU, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 126(2),118(1),118(2),189(4),109,190 OF BNS, 2023, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT MYSURU, BY IMPOSING ANY CONDITIONS TO THE STASFACTION OF THIS HON’BLE COURT, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶24

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

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:13897 CRL.P No. 16437 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 is before

¶31

this Court seeking for grant of regular bail in Crime No.3/2025 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(4), 109 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶32

Brief facts of the case:

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and injured were acquainted with each other. There was a long standing enmity existed between them. Accused Nos.1 to 5 approached the complainant when the complainant was going in the vicinity of graveyard in Ganesh Nagar. The complainant in order to attend nature call, he went near graveyard. At that time, accused No.1 attacked the complainant by using long sword. In order to avoid the said attack, the complainant had held his left

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:13897 CRL.P No. 16437 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

knee and sustained grievous injuries. The accused No. 2 with similar weapon, assaulted the complainant.

¶38

It is further alleged that, all the accused with a common intention, had assaulted the complainant and caused injuries. In the meantime, the complainant fell down on the ground. The accused persons have thought that the complainant might have died and left him and went away from the spot. The complainant got admitted to the hospital and obtained treatment.

¶39

Based on the information given by the injured/complainant, a case has been registered against accused No.7 for the offences stated supra.

¶40

Heard Sri.Muzaffar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Asma Kouser, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

¶41

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. There are contradictions in the

¶42

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13897 CRL.P No. 16437 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

statement of the complainant regarding assault. In fact, accused Nos.1 and 5 have been enlarged on bail. Accused Nos.7 and 8 have been named in the FIR, however, subsequently, they have been dropped from the charge sheet.

¶45

It is further submitted that the complainant has been discharged from the hospital on 02.02.2025 and he is out of danger. Petitioner No.2 is in judicial custody since 23.02.2025 and petitioner No.3 is in judicial custody since 07.04.2025. Therefore, they may be released on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition.

¶46

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State vehemently submitted that, ongoing rivalry between the group of accused No.1 and one Javed has been existed since 2015. Several complaints have been lodged by both the groups against each other over the years. The complainant/injured has been assaulted brutally by the accused and others. The

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13897 CRL.P No. 16437 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

manner in which the accused and others had assaulted the complainant would indicate its gravity. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there may be chances of committing similar offences. Hence, it is not appropriate to grant bail. Making such submissions, he prays to reject the petition.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the complainant belongs to the rival group of accused No.1. There were several cases pending against each other. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4. As per the averments of the complaint, the complainant had been assaulted by accused No.1. However, the said accused has been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Considering the said aspect, it is appropriate to grant bail by imposing suitable conditions that would take care of the apprehension of the prosecution.

¶51

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:13897 CRL.P No. 16437 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶57

(ii) The petitioners are ordered to be

¶58

enlarged on bail in Crime No.3/2025 of respondent-police for the offence under Sections 126(2), 118(1), 118(2), 189(4), 109 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on executing personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶59

(iii) The petitioners shall not threaten

¶60

or tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶61

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before

¶62

the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶63

8 -

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:13897 CRL.P No. 16437 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

(v) The petitioners shall not involve in

¶67

any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶68

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

¶69

bail.

¶70

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶71

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Mohammed Faraz @ Mental Faraz v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Faraz @ Mental Faraz 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

Jaffer Sadiq @ Thimma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish G Vs Smt Sapna M

Sri Muneesh @ Jogi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Jayappa Vs State of Karnataka

Pratheek H @ Prathik Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Venkatesh @ Ledhu Vs the State of Karnataka