High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Mohammed Thoufir vs State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammed Thoufir vs State Of Karnataka on 26 May, 2011
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
I

IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATAKA AT  A' 

BATED THIS THE 26m DAY OF  1'  4
BEFQRE..~~~    "

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE 

CRIMINAL 1>ET1T1ciN=N_o. .274. 1* OF 1
BETWEEN: ” I

Sri.E\/Iohammed Th0ufif’;- .,

S/0 A.Anwar, ‘

Aged about 21 years, vv
Residing at NQ..23.46, 9′ _ _
Near Missi01f{Réja”€i, 4′
18’ Cross, Mai1di”V.1’v’EQha1Vi;3; ‘ ‘

Mysore. . . . .Petit:io1:1er

[By afifxa, Advecates]
AND :

State pf Ké{;=r1a’ia}§:ag V
By»_'{ija3:anagéara Police Station,

V ‘I V. ….. 14 «
_ . Mysore Tja1j;’r}..<: and District,
its Public Prosecutor,

High C'U:i'I_fi__E%1iiiding.

8Aa.;)ga1Qr€_;’2Q}i3 pending an ihea fikf gf Efijayafiagam

?€s§§e:fi:€ Siziiiéozz, Ixiyacara City, which is; Y€§§’iS§€f€?{§ for {ha

/*

W,

/”

effenee puniehabie under Section 392 of {PC anti the

Prineipai District and Sessions Judge, i\Iiyee§e’~._:he.s

rejected the ban peeeon on 23io2,2e’:;i.”__’M%e-

Cri.Misc.Ne.208/2812.

This Criminal Petition eoIijiing_Afi:>:r 7:}r<'3',ers"e:i_

day, the court made the f0i1Qv.aingv:"»__A
0 R _

The petitioner arraigned as
accused No.2, file of the HI
Adcntionais 'i JMFC, Mysore
registereti under Section 392

of IPCVh to enlarge him on bail.

‘ ‘2.e–.Ii is ease of the prosecution that at about

24.11.2010, three unknevm persons

i\/iangeia euira (if the eompiainant

Sfri”i»nKE:§!’£;i’t.ii.a. while ehe wae returning home from her

2 i’ei;:i_iiveis heuse. in respect ef the said incident

iodgeei a repert Wiih the jurieeiieiienai

mpeiiee ‘eased en erhieiz the peiiee regieierefi :2: ease

egeiiiei ihree vhigiewri §€’f$@i}S, ifiezsiieg iEi’V!E’S§i§–&1§i€}I1,

$.14}

these petitioners along with two others “were

apprehended on 27.11.2010. Aeeerding to the”e_aSe’~»_ef

the prosecution, at the instance ef aee:L1see’£-C’jNte:;71_p’~

Mangaia eutra said to have 1*eieee;fCi”t.~Vfrei’:f1.’_’_the ‘ ‘

eompfiainant was recovered andtat ithet ifxtstaneep

petitioner, a meter eyele ea-;._:i*t_Q have tzeem »LirhiIe”w’

committing the offenee t5fe’1~n. thie date of
his arreet the petiti0t’ieti_’E:’ae, Custody.
His prayer tfiteetsions Judge for
bail eame=i’ the petitioner is

beforefiiis’ ‘

3.’EahavVe E*1eatfd»-thetétearned Counsel appearing on

betifig eicies. Ej€’¥1tS€d the records made available.

1 etzbmitted on behaif of the petitioner that

if’Ln.thEi abee,:iee of any particulars of the meter eyeie in

the eergepiaint hedged by the eemplainante recovery of

” teeter eyete gate’: te have been made at the instance ef

1′ Niiihie petitiener flees net ieeriminate him it: any manner.

it is fertttet” et:’ee1§:.’:ed that aeeueeé fiefi has eireaay

4

been granted bail by this Court and this;””pe’t’i:’iefi;ef~.

stands on the same footing as accused of:

the principles of parity he shouléi be:.ef1§a’:ige{:1.’GiIi’ T.

5. As stated supra, the-vepeeifie aliegatiohfzevfhade by.”

the eemplainant is thet while “w_as eOmi.r1g:§ towards
here house, three on a motor
Cyeie and one’a1n_Qng:Athe:fi¥ ;f;h.e”Manga1a sutra
and went efiay h complaint, the
details been furnished. Even
aeeoriiing the mangala sutra said to
have person of the Complainant

haefbveen feeQVefedV’at the instance of accused No.1.

Fig.3 h’aS””é11ready been granted bail by this

141 1 /201 1. Of course no recovery

h:::S” bee1ie:’j_:rEade at the instance of accused N0. 3.

Hoerever, “having regard ‘[0 the fact that the details of the

hieter eyele has met been furnished in the compiaint, at

ihie stage? mereiy on the basis ef the reeevery 0f meter

iiyeie matie 2:: ‘{he ;’:1eia11ee ef ihe eetiiéezzer’, it eehnet he

eaid the: grime faeie ‘ihe izweivezhenz :3? {he geiiiiener £21

‘J1

ihe offence aileged is establishevd,

no greunds to beiieve ‘:hatii_1’e-.VpeiitAIerie3f pf the

offence punishable wider Seeti{:}n__ 1382 View
ef the matter, this ‘4.fiie..”bpinien that the
petitioner is e:_ii;’it_1e<i bai} subject to

conditions;

:3. }_l1:1 A __r*esuI7:.;”~«.f:_i1e _-petition is allowed. The
petitione: is,or’de:i”e«ei* ‘*b:e’fe1eased on bail in connection

wi:i:j’eie.N§.i7j2oi’: 0}: the file of the 111 Additional i

(Jr.Dn.} and JMFC, Mysore (Crime

Vijayanagara Police Station, Mysore

siuiifijeeit to the following eonditiens:

V ” ‘_ ii)” The petitioner shall execute a personal

bond fer a sum 0f Rs.50,000/~ with
‘zwo solvent sureties for the like sum te
the satiefaetien of the learned

Magistrate;

{ii} The petitioner shall not iritiriiidate er
tamper wiih ihe preeeeutien witnesses

in any §I”1a§’i§’i{3£”:

‘<JMW.; .\
, «E X:

Ha shall appear on all hearing dates

before the court Without fail:

to the one alleged in the Case $1153.:

He shali net induige in any acts _$.i::ni};é*g’;9.1’L:’—- ”

(yr) He shall mark his at:’r:e?,n<3_éiI':}:a7T.A

jurisdictional prilicgt ori'<~3v%::*y 1'O'1"_: 3j_[1'"d

25"' of 'th€ eachV"J'J'C%;fi~f*f1CIaf'-diC1VitY1 V1fi11

disposal of ::ase..V"'W '

RS/*