Mohammed Faizal Vs the State of Karnataka

MOHAMMED FAIZAL S/O. HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT: NO.2-25(1), HIDAYATHNAGARA, THODAR VILLAGE, MIJAR POST, BADAGUMIJARU, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 225.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. LETHIF. B, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MOODABIDRE POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. ASMA KOUSAR, ADDL. SPP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.131/2022 (SC NO.3/2023) OF MOODABIDRE POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 353, 224, 307, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I MANGALORE D.K DISTRICT AND THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18316 CRL.P No. 82 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(POCSO) D.K.MANGALURU HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 02.12.2025 IN CRL.M.NO.1104/2025.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.131/2022 (SC No.3/2023) of Moodabidre Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 353, 224, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC seeking regular bail.

¶25

Brief facts of the case :

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the ASI of Moodabidre Police Station lodged a complaint stating that he, along with his staff, had been to the house of accused No.1/petitioner to execute a non-bailable warrant. At that time, accused No.2, who is the father of accused No.1, allegedly, threatened the police officials and obstructed them from discharging their official duties. It is further alleged that accused No.1 was inside the house and he

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18316 CRL.P No. 82 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

was attempting to escape from the clutches of the police.

¶30

When the complainant tried to apprehend him, the petitioner is stated to have assaulted a Head Constable with a dragger and in the process caused bleeding injuries to his right hand. Though the complainant and the injured - Head Constable, attempted to apprehend the petitioner, he threatened them and escaped through the back door of the house. Subsequently, the respondent/police arrested him and produced him before the learned Magistrate. The respondent/police, after conducting investigation, have filed the charge sheet.

¶31

It is further noticed that the petitioner was on bail. However, he remained absent and he did not appear before the Court regularly, and hence, a non-bailable warrant came to be issued against him. Subsequently, he was arrested in Special Case No.16/2024. Thereafter, he was secured in the present case by way of issuing the body warrant.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:18316 CRL.P No. 82 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶36

that the petitioner is the only person available to look after his aged mother, who is suffering from cancer. It is further submitted that accused No.2, who is the father of the petitioner, died on 19.02.2025. It is also contended that the injury allegedly caused to one of the Head Constables is simple in nature. Though, Section 109 of the BNS, 2023 has been invoked, it is only for the purpose of making the said case as heinous offence.

¶37

It is further submitted that, the petitioner has

¶38

been targeted by the respondent police as it is alleged that he had assaulted one of the head constables. In fact, the petitioner is not aware about the pending case. The respondent police had deliberately not served summons and they saw that NBW has to be issued against the petitioners. The petitioner would abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18316 CRL.P No. 82 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public

¶42

Prosecutor for the respondent/State vehemently submits that as many as twenty criminal cases are registered against the present petitioner. It is contended that he has remained absent in almost all the said cases and he was secured through a body warrant. It is further submitted that, when the police officials went to execute the warrant in one of the cases, the petitioner assaulted them. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would send a wrong message to the society and the public at large. Therefore, having regard to the criminal antecedents, his noncooperation with the investigating agency, and also the conduct in hampering the Court proceedings, it is not appropriate to grant him bail. Making such submission learned Addl. SPP for respondent State prays to reject the petition.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the averments of the complaint and also the order passed by the Trial Court, it appears that there

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18316 CRL.P No. 82 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

are twenty cases registered against the petitioner. However, learned the counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are only four cases pending and the remaining cases have been ended in acquittal. Moreover, on going through the averments of the complaint, the respondent police have deliberately and intentionally, seen that NBW has to be issued against him.

¶47

Be that as it may, mere pendency of the case may not be a ground to reject the bail. Hence I proceed to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The petition is allowed.

¶50

ii) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.131/2022 (SC No.3/2023) of Moodabidre Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 353, 224, 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1 (POCSO), Mangalore, D K. on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two local

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18316 CRL.P No. 82 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶54

iii) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶55

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court on all hearing dates without fail.

¶56

vi) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal cases till disposal of the case.

¶57

vii) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in every fifteen days on Saturday between 10.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. before the jurisdictional police, till disposal of all the cases.

¶58

In case, 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.

¶59

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶60

BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Mohammed Faizal v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Faizal 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

Swapan Ghosh Vs the State of Karnataka by

Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Hidayath Ulla Khan Vs State by Suddagunte Palya

Arun Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Asha a B Vs State by Holehonnur Police Station

Sri Malik Imran @ Imran Vs State of Karnataka