Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/9136/2017 of MOHAMMED ZUBAIR Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 28 December 2017
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.9136/2017 BETWEEN: 1.MOHAMMED ZUBAIR S/O MOHAMMED ASLAM, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS BSC STUDENT, R/O BESIDE JAFAR GARAGE, HASSAN MANZIL, NEAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28[TH]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017.
BEFORE.
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9136/2017
BETWEEN:
1.MOHAMMED ZUBAIRS/O MOHAMMED ASLAM,AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.BSC STUDENT,R/O BESIDE JAFAR GARAGE,HASSAN MANZIL, NEAR VENKATESHWARA TALKIES,CHITRADURGA TOWN-5//50L1
2.MANSOOR ALI @ MANSOOR|S/O UMMAR HAYATEH,AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS|MANSON WORK,R/O RAZAKHIYA MOHALLA,LAMBANIHATTY ROAD,HOLALKERE TOWN-5/7/520CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MOHAMED SHAFI S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKABY CHITRADURGA KOTE POLICECHITRADURGAREP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR|HIGH COURT COMPLEX, ?
BENGALURU. ~ RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OFCR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS|PRAYING THAT THIS HON BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO.ENLARGE.THE|PETITIONER.ON,BAIL|IN|CRIME.NO.165/2017 OF CHITRADURGA KOTE POLICE STATION,CHITRADURGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489B.OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERSTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
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.
ORDER
Heardjiearnedcounsel]for.petitioners|and|learned HCGP for respondent.
2 |The substance of the complaint is that the Sub- Inspector of Police, Kote Police Station, Chitradurgareceived a credible information that the petitioner was.exhibiting currency notes of,L2,000/- in the publicplace and offering he would give two currency notes.for one.
3
3. Learned HCGP would submits that the petitioner|was involved in exchange of counterfeit currency. Theclaim of the prosecution is that he was offering twocurrency notes of 42,000/- in exchange of one. |
4Learned counsel for petitioner would also submit|that the other accused persons and petitioner No.2have been enlarged on bail in Cri.P.No.9229/2017 on17.17.7017.
5. |In the circumstance, it is to be noted that thelearned counsel for petitioner submitted that the otheraccused person and the petitioner No.2 are enlargedon bail. But it is not understandable as to why this.petition is filed for 2[53]petitioner more particularly|certifiedCODYoftneorder|passedIn|Crl.P.No.9229/2017 is also made available. Thus, theact of filing petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C
despite the fact the petitioner No.2 was released onbail which is not cancelled is not proper.
6. |Consideringtheconceptofparity|and|circumstances of the case, petition is allowed. Thepetitioner No.1 is enlarged on bail in Cr.No.165/2017registered by Chitradurga Police Station, subject tothe following conditions; <+The petitioner No.1 shall execute a personal bond for450,000/- with a solvent surety|
owning and possessing immovable propertiesfor tne likesuM.for tne likesuM.
<<+The petitioner No.1 shall not terrorize thewitnessesNOT|Camper|tneprosecutionevidence in any manner. witnessesNOT|Camper|tneprosecutionevidence in any manner.
<<<+The petitioner No.1 shall not leave the territory of the trial Court without priorpermission till the completion of the trial.
<A+The petitioner No.1 shall appear before the concerned court regularly.
SBN.
Sd/-—JUDGE