High CourtsSingle Bench(2009) 04 KAR CK 0041

Mr. Ayaaz and Imran Khan vs State

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 30 April 2009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jawad Rahim, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 1525 of 2009

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 449 words

Jawad Rahim, J.—Petitioners-1 and 2 are co-accused in Cr. No. 105 of 2009 which is under investigation under Sections 324, 506(B) read with 34 IPC on the allegation of one Mohammed Iqbal that on 15.03.2009 his sister had given hand loan to the first accused and in turn the complainant had gone to Ulsoor Market. Later when he asked them to return the money, the petitioners-1 and 2 indulged firstly in verbal altercation and then in physical assault. Both the accused are stated to have gestured with chopper directing at the legs of the complainant and also assaulted him. Their main intention appears to be to hold such threat as to endanger the life.

2.

The complainant received immediate action from the police and a case has come to be registered. Both the petitioners are sought to be arrested in connection with the said report. They have therefore approached this Court.

3.

As could be seen from the allegation itself the complainant, his sister and the accused seem to know each other very well. There is money lending transaction between them and they are said to be permanent residents within the jurisdiction of the complainant police hence the chances of the accused absconding is found to be remote. As regards winning over witnesses is concerned, as the complainant has not only to recover money but seeks action against the accused, he will not get won over. Coming to the nature of the allegation it is seen at the most charge is one u/s 324 and 506(B) IPC. The punishment prescribed for both these offences is not compulsory imprisonment, such offences are punishable with a fine or imprisonment. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the relief sought could be granted. Hence the order. The petition stands allowed. Petitioners ere admitted to bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners are direct to appear before the investigating officer in Cr. No. 105 of 2009 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) On their appearance, investigating officer may arrest them and he shall release them on the execution of a bond in a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety each in the likesum.

(iii) They shall apply to the jurisdictional trial court seeking grant of regular bail within three weeks after the arrest and release in the manner aforesaid, failing which the relief granted by this order shall stand revoked.

(iv) They shall report in the complainant police station between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m. till filing charge-sheet.

(v) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of Sessions Judge without the prior permission or tamper with the prosecution material and witnesses.