Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/8885/2015 of SHIBIL AHMED Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 31 December 2015
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.8885 OF 2015 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.8888 OF 2015 IN CRL.P.No.8885/2015 BETWEEN: SHIBIL AHMED S/O. SHAFI AHMED AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT. DOOR NO.3
IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATEKED THIS THE [ST]DAY OF DBECBEMBER 2015
BEKORE,
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR|
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8885 OF 2015C/WCRIMINAL PETITION No.8888 OF 2015
IN CRL.P.No.8885/2015BETWEEN:
SHIBIL AHMED9/O. SHAFI AHMEDAGED ABOUT 21 YEARSR/AT. DOOR NO.3_BRIGADE NBST APARTMENT1[ST]CROSS, MARCOM ROADASHOK NAGARBANGALORE -560025
(BY SRI SATISH R GIRJI, ADV..,)
AND:
.. PRHTITION
THR STATEH OF KARNATAKABY MANGALORE EAST POLICE STATION.REPRESENTED BY SPP,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAANNBXURE TO COURT BUILDINGBANGALORE -56000
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
~ RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PRTITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO BNLARGE THE PETITIONER|ON BAIL IN CR.NO.244/2015 OF MANGALORE EAST P.S.,|MANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 95006, 341307, 323, 324 R/W 34 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.No.8888/2015
BETWEEN
SHEIK SALMAN9/O. SHEIK MAQBOOL AHMEDAGED ABOUT 23 YEARSR/AT. FATHIMA VILLAMOIDEEN NAGAR, 1[ST]CROSSMOIDEEN PALLI, KUDROLIMANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT — 975003.
.. PRHTITION
(BY SRI. SATISH R. GIRJI, FOR SRI B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)
AND
THR STATEH OF KARNATAKABY MANGALORE EAST POLICE STATION.REPRESENTED BY SPP,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAANNEXURE TO COURT BUILDINGBANGALORE-560001
_ RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PBRTITION IS FILED UNDER SBECTIO439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER|ON BAIL IN CR.NO.244/2015 OF MANGALORE EAST P.S.,|MANGALOORU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506,|341, 307, 323, 324 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THRSEK PERETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THDAY, 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.
COMMON ORDER
Petitioners have filed these two criminal petitionsunder Section 439 Cr.P.C, seeking for their release onbail, in Crime No.244/2015 for the offences punishableunder Sections 904, 506, 341, 307, 323, 324 r/wsection 34 of IPC of Mangaluru East Police Station.|
2 |Case.oT|theprosecution|1Sthat|OTL22.11.2015, one Nagendra along with his friends aitercelebrating the birthday function of one Chethan atGoldfinch Hotel at Mangaluru, there was quarrelbetween some youths at about 12.30 am, while thecomplainant and his friends went to pacify the quarrel,the petitioners assaulted the said Chethan for which, hetook treatment in A.J.Hospital, Mangaluru. On thecomplaint made by Nagendra, the case was registeredagainst one Nausheel Hameed and two other persons. —Though, names of the petitioners were not included either in the complaint or in the FIR, but during theCOUT SEoT|investigation,thepolice|arrestedthepetitioners though there is no specific allegation againstthe petitioners and their names were also included.
3. |It is the case of the petitioners that they arenot involved in any of the cases and they are falselyimplicated1nNthe|CASE.TheyWEeETarrestedOTl22.11.2015. The application filed under Section 439 ofCr.P.C., was rejected by the Trial Court on the groundthat the offences committed by the petitioners areserious in nature and if the bail is granted they arelikely to tamper the prosecution witnesses and hence,rejected the same. Hence, the present petitions havebeen filed.
a |Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned HCGP for the respondent.
5I have carefully gone through the copy of thecomplaint, FIR and the order passed by the Trial Court.
6. Admittedly, the complaint was lodged byNagendra on 22.11.2015. In the said complaint, namesof the petitioners were not mentioned. In the complaint,an allegation has been made against one NausheelHameed. Further in the FIR also, names of thepetitioners were not included. In the FIR, it wasmentioned that there were other two unknown personsalong with Nausheel Hameed. The petitioner in)Crl.P.No.8885/2015 is a final year B.A. student atGokarnanatheshwara College. The brother of thepetitioner in Crl.P.No.8888/2015 is getting married onL[4/]January, 2016 and the reception is on 03.01.2016. |The specific case of the petitioners is that they are notinvolved in any of the offences and they are falselyimplicated. Further the petitioners are permanentresidents of the Mangaluru city. They will abide by any of the condition imposed by this Court while grantingthe bail. |
TS|Learned Government Advocate appearing forthe respondent has not disputed the fact that thenames of the petitioners were not mentioned either inthe complaint or in the FIR. |
8. |Taking into consideration the facts of thecase, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to grant bail. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
9. |The petitioners — accused are ordered to be|released on bail for the offences in Crime No.244/2015.subject to the following conditions.
i) The petitioners shall execute the personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each, with two sureties for GH
the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial|
Court.
(1) The petitioners shall make themselves|
availableforinterrogationby|the.investigation officer, as and when they arerequired.
(11) The petitioners shall not directly or)indirectly induce threat to any personsacquainted with the facts of the cases.
(iv) The petitioners shall attend the Court as)
and when they are directed.
(v) The petitioners shall not leave the limits|
oT Mangalurucity,withoutthe.prior
permission of the Court.
Sd/-.
JUDGE.