High Court of Karnataka Grants Bail to Accused in Dacoit Preparation Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence and Long Incarceration. Petitioner Not Arrested at Spot and No Recovery Made, Bail Granted Under Section 439 CrPC for Offences Under Sections 399 and 402 IPC.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 61
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Mohsin @ Syed Mohsin, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking regular bail in Crime No.314/2017 registered by Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case arose from a suo moto complaint by the ASI of the police station on 07.10.2017 at about 4:00 a.m., alleging that accused Nos.1 to 5 (petitioner being accused No.4) were present at a vacant place near a railway track in Shampura, carrying clubs, and had hatched a plan to commit dacoity by stopping passersby. The ASI apprehended accused Nos.1 to 3, while accused Nos.4 and 5 fled. A FIR was registered, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.53570/2018. Subsequently, the charge sheet was split into C.C.No.55962/2019 regarding the petitioner, who was apprehended later. The petitioner had been in custody since his arrest and had been incarcerated for about 2 years and 9 months. The court noted that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot, no recovery was made from him, and the trial was likely to take time. The court held that continued detention would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner on certain conditions, including executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, not tampering with evidence, not threatening witnesses, and appearing before the court regularly.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Regular Bail - Petitioner sought bail for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC - Court considered that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot, no recovery from him, and he was in custody for over 2 years 9 months - Held that continued detention would be violative of Article 21 of Constitution - Bail granted with conditions (Paras 1-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC for alleged offences under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.314/2017 (C.C.No.55962/2019) pending on the file of the 11th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, subject to executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, and conditions including not tampering with evidence, not threatening witnesses, and appearing before the court regularly.

Law Points

  • Bail
  • Section 439 CrPC
  • Sections 399 and 402 IPC
  • Preparation to commit dacoity
  • Prima facie case
  • Long incarceration
  • Split charge sheet
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 139

Criminal Petition No.2835 of 2020

2020-07-08

Suraj Govindaraj

Sri Javeed S (for petitioner), Sri Thejesh P (HCGP for respondent)

Mohsin @ Syed Mohsin

State of Karnataka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 CrPC

Remedy Sought

Enlargement on regular bail in Crime No.314/2017 for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC

Filing Reason

Petitioner was in custody for about 2 years 9 months and sought bail

Previous Decisions

Charge sheet filed in C.C.No.53570/2018, later split into C.C.No.55962/2019 for petitioner

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he was not arrested at the spot, no recovery was made from him, and he had been in custody for a long period. State opposed bail citing seriousness of the offence.

Ratio Decidendi

Bail is granted where the accused was not arrested at the spot, no recovery was made from him, and he has been in custody for a long period (2 years 9 months), making continued detention violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for being enlarged on regular bail in Crime No.314/2017 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. The petitioner was not arrested at the spot, no recovery has been made from him and he has been in custody for about 2 years and 9 months. Continued detention of the petitioner would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Procedural History

FIR registered on 07.10.2017 in Crime No.314/2017 for offences under Sections 399 and 402 IPC. Charge sheet filed in C.C.No.53570/2018, later split into C.C.No.55962/2019 for the petitioner. Petitioner apprehended subsequently and remained in custody. Filed Criminal Petition No.2835/2020 under Section 439 CrPC for bail.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 399, 402
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in Co-operative Societies Election Dispute — Remaining Term of Office Computed from Date of Vacancy, Not Notification. Section 29-E of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 interpreted to mean that a direc...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in FEMA Case — Nominee Director Not Vicariously Liable for Acts of Subordinates. The Court held that a nominee director of a joint venture company cannot be held vicariously liable under the Foreign Exchange Manageme...