Mohammed Rizwan @ Rijju vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2020

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Rizwan @ Rijju vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2020

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                                1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

                           BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.119 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED RIZWAN @ RIJJU
S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT BADRIYA MANZIL
SHIVANAGARA
MOODUSHEDDE
MANGALURU - 575 008
DAKSHINA KANNADA
                                                ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI: LETHIF B, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KONAJE POLICE STATION,
DASKHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                               ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT: K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

      THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.174/2018 OF
KONAJE POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 450, 392, 397, 109, 120B, 342,
411, 414 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 75 OF IPC.
                                    2

     THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                               ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of objections, but has orally opposed the petition.

2. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is laid against six accused persons under sections 417, 450, 392, 397, 109, 120B, 342, 411, 414 r/w 34 IPC and section 75 of IPC. Accused Nos.4 and 5 were released on regular bail before the trial court. Proceedings against accused No.6 are quashed by orders of this Court in Crl.P.No.1697/2019 dated 28.06.2019.

3. The case of the prosecution is that two unknown persons entered the house of the complainant CW-1 wearing burkha and committed robbery of gold ornaments. After arrest of the petitioner and accused No.4, a gold ingot was recovered from the shop of accused No.6. The bail application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the trial court.

4. Learned HCGP submits that the petitioner is involved in two other cases and is convicted for identical offences, as such, he is an habitual offender.

5. However, having regard to the overall circumstances of the instant case and having regard to the nature of the property that is recovered and identification of the petitioner itself being doubtful, in my view, it is not proper to extend the custody of the petitioner any further solely by way of punishment.

Hence, the following order:-

Criminal petition is allowed.

a) Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

b) He shall appear before the court as and when required.

c) He shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

d) He shall not get involved in similar offences.

e) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE *mn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court