Back
V. SRISHANANDA
Sadiq Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri.Syed Muzakkir ahmed, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.K.Rahul Rai, High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
2. The present petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
'Wherefore, the petitioner (accused No.3) most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.9/2022 of Kumaraswamy Layout Police Station, Bangalore City, for the offences under Sections 395 of IPC, which is pending on the file of Hon'ble XXX additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, on such terms and conditions in the ends of justice'.
3. Brief facts of the case is as under:
The complaint came to be lodged by one Umar Hayath Khan son of late Khadar Khan whereby Kumarswamy Layout Police station registered a case in Crime No.9/2022 on 14.01.2022 for the offences punishable under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') against two unknown person at the inception. In the complaint it is contended that the complainant is a resident of house bearing No.224, Yalachenahalli, Bangalore-560 078 since last 15 years. He retired from Indian aluminium Company in the year 199
The main legal point established is that the grant of bail should consider the accused's criminal antecedents, presence in the FIR, and the potential prejudice to the trial if findings are made at an....
Granting anticipatory bail based on lack of evidence and the need for custodial interrogation to unearth the truth, while emphasizing the accused's cooperation with the investigating agency.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
