Sajidhussain S/O.Mohammadiqbal ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sajidhussain S/O.Mohammadiqbal ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2010

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 8"" DAY OF' JUNE, 2oI0;~~~--- I   

BEFORE _ V
THE HON'}3LE MRJUSTECE   
CRIMINAL PETITI0N.No.7$9..9I/'2I)10 " ' I 
BETWEEN:  I I

1.

Sajidhussain, . 2 _' S / 0 M0hammadiqbaI*M"anij,rar;. I j R/0 Myadar Oni, 1 Dharwad. . I

2. Yusuf, H ;;;.I_. 'V . . 4' ._ 8/ 0 Abd;ulI<;Ir1adaf'.IMa'kand~;a,r;'_ ' R/oNehr1,1ﬁag:¢1r, ' Dharwad, ii:-. s

3. Wahid a1iE1s.WaI'Iid nIAfar, V8510 Aizdul Hé;miI7nWale. I "R! 0 'R'as"ul:pur Oni,

4. Man,' / 0 A1},ab}1ksh Sayyed, R'/o 'Pen'd.arga1Ii, Dharwad. PEETITIONERS I A +(.BY ISRI.I<. M. SHIRALLI, ADVOCATE) I .A.NDI:T' I'I'§'Ie' [State of Karnataka, __ Town Police Station, ' Dharwad.

2I»%?w II;

Ex) R/by SPP, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. RESPC)NDENT [BY SRLV. S. KULKARNI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ORDER THE R_EvLEA~sVE"--._'OE _"

PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.26,+"O9 '{--DHA-IRwAfIyiTOw.N P.S.CR.NO.84/07) PENDING ON THEi'.,FILEt()7F F,AST"TR;'5\:C__K"IA;1Va 7 COURT NO.1, DHARWAD, REGISTERED EOE».

OFFENCES U/S 489{A)(B)(C) Ipcmw sEe.34VIPc_.' THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COI»tINr.:; ON" OEDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

This petitiOn':iS'_' Cr.P.C. by the petitioners wlfiO if~_1re"""ae_cuse'dx"NOs,2"1_:tO_'4 seeking bail in s.C.No.26/:QCé9s. i I " "The learned Ciounsel submits that the trial Court i'~.has"n,Ot piasSe'i"«--.any Order on the application filed by him he has filed this petition directly to the High ii'C301,1.--:-t.' -wi"iThe Office has raised Objection regarding itHiii."'rriaintainability, which the learned Counsel declined to ii L-m'sW'er--5 Hence, the matter is listed before Court. if '.3 J

3. It is noticed that earlier bail pleas of the accused were rejected and they were subjected to trial. Now, proceeding in S.C.No.26/2009 is in the middle of many witnesses have been examined. While tlM1_<_3Vitr..i.a'l--.i_1i"s in it progress, the petitioners have filed apghjilicationon-i25;_S;'%Q:1'O seeking bail before the iearned triaiii7Judge:,."_iar1'di' appiication was posted for objecti'ori"iof theplroisecutionlllon 31.5.2010. Since the objec.tions"i'i}\}e1'ei:'nocﬁled the 'case is now posted for objections on

4. Undc'Li'i5tetl'ly, ias gtltei facing charge for offences sections 489(A)(13}{C) of IPC and the trialeisi ivnViproigress~§i' the learned trial Judge has ,9grantegﬁi.opijcrtunity'«to____tl1e prosecution to file objections.

ViThe;appi1evatior1.._ior__bailwas filed only on 25.5.2010 and has bee:rlie'ejotm§.'e:d 15.6.2010. It cannot; be described as znorchnate deiay f§l"r its consideration, more so, when the triai '1-:'"5c.¢5til'it--=lI1 progress. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition andi-tlieiisarne is rejected. s1.1b* E

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court