Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Mukilesh Ur Rehaman vs The State Of Karnataka Basavapatna Police Station Channagiri Taluk

High Court Of Karnataka|30 August, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6146 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
MUKILESH UR REHAMAN S/O ABI UR REHAMAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O MAHISASTHALI VILLAGE LASHKARPUR POST JANGIPUR TALUK MUSHINI VILLAGE WEST BENGAL STATE – 700 153 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.K.N.JAYAPRAKASH, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BASAVAPATNA POLICE STATION CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.162/2015 OF BASAVAPATNA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489(B) AND 489(C) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.
2. The petitioner (Accused No.2) is in judicial custody in their Crime No.162/2015. During the pendency of this petition, the charge sheet is submitted to the Court in respect of the offences punishable under Section 489(B) and489(C) of IPC.
3. The allegation is, this petitioner supplied 101 fake currency notes to Accused No.1 and the same was seized from accused No.1 by the Investigating Officer on 12.11.2015. On his voluntary statement, this petitioner was implicated and arrested on 21.5.2017 and three fake currency notes of Rs.2,000/- denomination are seized from his possession.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner though arrested from West Bengal, nothing was seized from his possession immediately after his arrest. It is only in the police station a make believe mahazar was prepared to implicate him as accused No.2. His bail petition was rejected by the Sessions Court on the ground that he is a habitual offender. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Since the investigation is complete, he is no more required for interrogation. He is acquitted in the previous case and no other case as of now is pending against him.
5. Learned HCGP opposes the petition and submits that very fact that he was in possession of fake currency notes is sufficient to attract offences under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC. He is a resident of West Bengal, if enlarged on bail, he will disappear permanently thereby hampering the trail Court. It is the submission at the bar that Accused No.1 is enlarged on bail. Having regard to the given facts and circumstances of the case, there is no impediment to allow the petition, subject to the conditions.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.162/2015 registered by the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 489(B) and 489(C) of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) He shall execute a self bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one local solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The surety shall furnish his Identity Card and Aadhar Card to the Court, and he shall not have the history of offering sureties to the accused persons in any other criminal case.
(ii) He shall attend the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing regularly.
(iii) He shall mark his attendance on every alternative Tuesday before the Investigating Officer till conclusion of the trial during the office hours.
Sd/- JUDGE KLY/
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mukilesh Ur Rehaman vs The State Of Karnataka Basavapatna Police Station Channagiri Taluk

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
30 August, 2017
Judges
  • Rathnakala