Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 914 (KAR)

Irfan Shariff v. State

2020-05-28

B.M.SHYAM PRASAD

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent State, and perused the records. 2. The petitioner in this petition is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.34/2020 with Doddaballapur Town Police Station. The FIR in Crime No.34/2020 is registered against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 454 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and another Sri Abdul Rehman have been arrested by the police in the course of investigation. The petitioner along with Sri Abdul Rehman have filed common petition in Cr.No.34/2020 under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. before the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District Bengaluru, and this petition insofar as the petitioner is rejected and the other, Sri Abdul Rehman, is granted bail. As such, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this Court. 3. The police have registered the FIR against the petitioner and the other at the instance of Sri Gulzar S/o. Yaseen Sahab, who has filed information about the offence asserting that he is a resident of Bengaluru, and that he and his family members were visiting his sister in Gouribidanur on 25.3.2020, and were constrained to stay back there because of the lockdown restrictions. On 2.4.2020, he was informed by his neighbour that somebody had broken into his house. Therefore, he immediately returned to his place and found that the front door was broken open and somebody had stolen jewellery and silverware. 4. The respondent police has thereafter arrested the petitioner and Sri. Abdul Rehman during the course of investigation, and it asserted that on the basis of the voluntary statement by the accused/ the petitioner, the stolen material and iron rod used to commit the offence have been recovered from the petitioners residence . 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The alleged recovery of stolen material and iron rod purportedly used for commission of offence is doubtful. The only reason why his application for bail has been rejected by the Sessions Court is because the prosecution has contended that he is a habitual offender and another case for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC is pending against him. The alleged recovery of stolen material and iron rod purportedly used for commission of offence is doubtful. The only reason why his application for bail has been rejected by the Sessions Court is because the prosecution has contended that he is a habitual offender and another case for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC is pending against him. The learned counsel relying upon the Case Status printout of CC No.30119/2015 on the file of the 4th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru submits that the dispute in CC No.30119/2015 is settled in the Lok Adalath and no other proceedings are pending. The learned HCGP in reiteration of the objections filed before the Special Court submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and at his instance the stolen materials are recovered. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the petitioner would repeat the offence and therefore, it would be in the interest of justice. 6. The petitioner has been in custody and the prosecutions case is that based on his statement, the stolen material and the iron rod allegedly used for breaking open the door of the complainants premises is recovered. The investigation is essentially complete, and the petitioner has been in custody for considerable time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would be entitled for bail on certain conditions to ensure that there is no repeat offence. Therefore, the following order: The petition is allowed and consequentially, the petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime No.34/2020 of Doddaballapura Town Police Station, pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru registered against him for the alleged offences subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of. (v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in every fortnight that is on every alternative Sunday between 10 am to 5 pm with the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.