High Court Karnataka High Court

Mujeeb Khan vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mujeeb Khan vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
 "  . FIIGHCOURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE ETHDAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009;
BEFORE I I _ I I
THE IIONELE MRJUSTICE SUEIIASII   V' 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO;'4383,/2009.;«  
BETWEEN: I I I I I
1 MUJEEB KHAN
S/O LATE ANWAR KHAN
AOED ABOUT 22 YEARS 
R/AT NODAROA MOIIALLA 
NEAR KALAMMA TEMPLE ., --
DODDABALLAPUR,   t 
BANGALORE RURAL DIETEIOT. - 
I A I  ' ' I   EETITIONER

 'V .;§E;; $II\T'GHIfAI)V.)

1 STATE  
BY, EASAVANAOUDI POLICE STATION,
RE,p.BY~ STATE Is--UEI,Ic PROSECUTOR
 RESPONDENT

  E;-I.A.V.RAIvLAIiRIsIINA, HCGP}

cRI,,I5'EILED U/S439 CR.P.C BY 'i'HE ADVOCATE FOR THE

W  PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE
, ' 'PEEASEDIAIOTO ENLARGE THE PE"l'R. ON BAIL IN OR No: 296/2008 OF
 _'I-3AsA~;;ANOAOUDI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF' 2ND

_.A(:IvEvI, I3ANGALORE IN c.c.NO: 5947/2009, FOR THE OFEENCES

 '~»P,?"U/S I43, .144, 147, I48, 302, 307 R/W149 OFIPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOIJIl0WiNG:



 

ORDER

Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime Nog.l29_rE3/2008

registered by Basavanagudi police, on 25. 12.2oos:”fo1r?

punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, “the.

succumbed to the injury. As a result of: case is” r’egiste1’ed

for the offence punishable under Section’u’302 Police

on investigation has filed the cha”rge”sheet.ll ‘

2. It IS alleged that?gthe,aecf.1sled:l xlyere collecting money
from the complainant and ‘o»therlbii’sinesspeople in the locality.
In this regard, duarrel deceased also. CW1
is the injured .eyeii,:itness. that, the accused assaulted
the deceased ‘ overt act alleged against the
petitioner intne charge sheet is. this petitioner is assaulted on

the abdomen, lbutxlthe complainant says that, the petitioner is

assaultedoii shoulder.

counsel for the petitioner submits that.

‘accused ,1\l’os..3l and 4 have been enlarged on bail. Accused No.4

been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court and accused

It -..Noh.;3 been enlarged on bail by this Court.

4. In View of the same and also in View of filing of the

charge sheet. I find that, this petitioner is also entitled for bail.

5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is

enlarged on bail subject to foliowing conditions:

a) The petitioner shall execute personal

Rs.25,000/~« with one surety for the 0′

amount to the satisfaction of the Co*u’l’t;j:fl b

b) The petitioner shall not

prosecution witnesses or the”materiaI;’eVi;ience;,3

c) The petitioner shallAp…alppear..e_ befolre’–the: Court

regularly.

d) The petitioner gshall’:’inarI{~.’.l’hisVattendance once in
15 police between 10.00
Sunday.

e} the in appearing before the
Court,’ orlvi.olatiunl:””e.tllany of the bail conditions.
Vproseci1i.i.§l31’1 atl’-lihtesrty to seek for cancellation of
..«.;ba11’_ _____

Sd/-

FUDGE

“tap/.-.tF