Mohammed Musthafa Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.121/2025 (CRIME NO.41/2025) OF MANGALURU RURAL POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 352,351(2)(3),118(1),118(2),109(1),103(1) OF BNS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU.

¶16

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

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:25627 CRL.P No. 17483 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Accused in SC No.121/2025 pending before the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, arising out of Crime No.41/2025 registered by Mangaluru Rural Police Station, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2)(3), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 103(1) of BNS, 2023, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State.

¶24

FIR in Crime No.41/2025 was registered by Mangaluru Rural Police Station, Mangaluru, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 23.05.2025 received from Riyaz S/o Sulaiman. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 23.05.2025 and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offences. His bail application filed before the Trial

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:25627 CRL.P No. 17483 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Court in SC No.121/2025 was rejected on 10.11.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the

¶29

grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioner, who is a married man having no other criminal antecedents is in custody for the last more than one year. He submits that material on record would go to show that deceased was the aggressor in the present case and he had barged into the house of the petitioner at about 10.30 p.m. on the alleged date of incident and had assaulted the mother of the petitioner and the incident in question had taken place thereafter. He submits that

¶30

deceased has suffered only one grievous injury and in the scuffle, CW2 and CW3 have suffered simple injuries. He also submits that trial in the case is yet to commence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned HCGP, who has opposed the petition submits that CW1 to CW3 and CW6 are the eye witnesses to the incident in question. CW2 and CW3 have suffered injuries and therefore, their presence cannot be disputed at the spot of crime. He submits that there are serious allegations as against

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25627 CRL.P No. 17483 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the petitioner and the prosecution apprehends that the petitioner is likely to flee away from justice in the event he is enlarged on bail. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶35

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that deceased Sulaiman is the uncle of the petitioner. It appears that deceased was a marriage broker and marriage of the petitioner was performed with CW24 Sainaz, who was a divorcee. It also appears that the marital life of the petitioner was not cordial and on the alleged date of incident, in this background, he allegedly had telephoned the deceased at about 09.00 p.m. and abused him using filthy language. Subsequently, deceased Sulaiman along with his sons had gone to the house of the petitioner and according to the prosecution, petitioner who came out from the house armed with knife had abused Suleiman using filthy language and thereafter, had stabbing him with knife on his neck and also had assaulted CW2 and CW3 with the said knife when they tried to interfere.

¶36

Prosecution has recorded the statement of CW21 to CW24, who are also said to be eye witnesses in the present case. CW21 and CW22 are the parents of the petitioner and

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:25627 CRL.P No. 17483 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

CW23 is the younger brother of the petitioner. CW24 is the wife

¶41

of the petitioner. A reading of the statement of CW1 to CW24 would go to show that on the alleged date of incident i.e., on 22.05.2025 after the petitioner had spoken to Sulaiman over telephone, he had left the house and thereafter, Sulaiman came near the house of the petitioner and after entering petitioner's house, he had quarrelled with the inmates and assaulted petitioner's mother and as a result, she fell down. At that time, petitioner, who had gone out had entered the house and after seeing his mother lying on the floor as a result of assault made by deceased Sulaiman, it appears that petitioner, who got enraged went to the kitchen and brought knife and thereafter, assaulted Sulaiman, who had by then gone out of the house.

¶42

From the aforesaid, it is apparent that incident in question had taken place after Sulaiman had come to the house of the petitioner and assaulted his mother. It is not in dispute that Sulaiman has suffered only one grievous injury on the neck and other injures suffered are all simple in nature as a result of the scuffle that had taken place between the parties.

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:25627 CRL.P No. 17483 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Undisputedly, petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. He is a married man, who is required to take care of his wife. He is in custody for the last more than one year. Trial in the case is yet to commence. The prosecution has in all cited 50 charge sheet witnesses in the present case and therefore, chances of trial being completed and the case being disposed off on merits in the near future is very remote. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the statement of other eye witnesses has been recorded belatedly in the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:-

¶47

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in SC No.121/2025 pending before the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, arising out of Crime No.41/2025 registered by Mangaluru Rural Police Station, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2)(3), 118(1), 118(2),

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:25627 CRL.P No. 17483 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

109(1), 103(1) of BNS, 2023, subject to the following conditions:

¶52

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶53

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶54

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶55

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

¶56

e) The petitioner is directed to surrender his Passport, if any, before the Trial Court.

¶57

f) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶58

Sd/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶59

DN

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69

Mohammed Musthafa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Musthafa 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

Sri Chand Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sundara Acharya Beluvayi Vs Sri Dhanjaya Palke

Smt. Ritu, Vs State of Karnataka

Vamshi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sathisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mukthar Hussain @ Babu Vs the State of Karnataka