Karnataka High Court
CRL.A/2165/2025 of SYED MOHAMMED IRSHAD Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 18 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010705482025 NC: 2026:KHC:44125-DB CRL.A No. 2165 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SYED MOHAMMED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2165 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1.
SYED MOHAMMED IRSHAD
S/O SYED UMMER
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
R/O 23-3-158/3, SHAD MANZIL
1ST MAIN ROAD, SUBHASH NAGAR
PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU
DAKSHINE KANNADA
KARNATAKA 575 001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ULLAL P.S.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, SPP-II)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 454
OF CR.PC 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
26.03.2024 PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT IN THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU IN
S.C.NO.60/2020
ANNEXURE-F
AND
TO
DIRECT
THE
RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PAYMENT OF RS.8,37,500/- WITH 18% INTEREST TO THE APPELLANT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PRAMOD
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned SPP- II for respondent.
2. This appeal is filed with delay of 520 days. When the application was filed by the petitioner for release of M.O.130, the same was rejected on the ground that still split- up case is pending and while disposing of the main case also, made an observation that M.O.130 should be preserved till the disposal of said case. Even though such reasoning is given, the present application is filed with the delay of 520 days and the delay caused in filing the appeal is not properly explained, except the counsel bringing to notice of this Court that
HC-KAR
Crl.P.No.12189/2025 which was disposed of on 25.09.2025, wherein an observation is made in paragraph No.4 of the order that, if the petitioner files an appeal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the time spent in prosecuting the present proceeding shall stand excluded by extending the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The order is very clear that appropriate proceeding has to be initiated within a period of three weeks. But, no explanation with regard to delay and the appeal is not filed in time and the same was filed only on 27.10.2025. Though the order on the application for release of M.O.130 was passed in the month of March, 2024, Crl.P.No.12189/2025 was filed in 2025 and no explanation with regard to the delay caused March 2024 till filing of the criminal petition and the same is not explained in the affidavit accompanying the application. Hence, question of condoning the delay does not arise and on the ground of delay, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
3. Even on merits also, no ground is made out and while passing the impugned order made it clear that M.O.130 is
HC-KAR
to be preserved till the disposal of other connected split-up cases. When such order is passed by the Trial Court and also learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that still split-up case is pending. When such being the case, even on merits also, no ground is made out.
4. It is also clear that amount was seized at the instance of accused No.1 and the present application is filed for release of the amount by the father and he does not have any locus-standi to seek for release of the amount when the amount was seized at the instance of accused No.1. Hence, he is not entitled for release of the amount.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
Sd/- (B.PRAMOD) JUDGE
ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3