Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Mr. Mohammad Razim, S/o. M.K. Mahammed – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Through Mulki Police Station, Represented By SPP High Court Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application procedure introduction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual background of the case history. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments for and against bail. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. arguments of both parties regarding bail application and prior breaches. (Para 6) |
| 5. analysis of charge sheet and witness examination. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. court observations regarding witness testimony and the accused's right to bail. (Para 9) |
| 7. right to speedy trial implication on bail. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 8. final order on bail application. (Para 12) |
ORDER :
(S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.)
1. Accused No.7 in S.C.No.47/2021 pending before the Court of VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru arising out of Crime No.38/2020 registered by the Mulki Police Station, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 114, 109, 120B, 341, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.38/2020 was registered by Mulki Police Station, Mangaluru, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 395 read with
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 necessitates granting bail when material witnesses have been examined, irrespective of the seriousness of the crime.
The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, stating that prolonged detention without trial can justify grant of bail even for serious offences.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution necessitates granting bail when the prosecution's progress is insufficient, even for serious offenses.
An accused's right to a speedy trial enhances their entitlement to bail when trial proceedings are excessively delayed, irrespective of the gravity of the offences charged.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 necessitates granting bail if prolonged detention occurs without substantive progress in proceedings.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is paramount, and prolonged custody without trial can warrant the granting of bail.
Bail applications must consider the distinct roles of accused individuals, particularly in serious crimes, prioritizing gravity and witness safety over parity or prolonged incarceration.
Grant of Bail - Trial is in progress and if such findings are allowed to stand it would seriously prejudice the prosecution case. At the stage of granting of bail, the court can only go into the ques....
The court granted bail due to lengthy custody, similarity of allegations with a co-accused who received bail, and lack of evidence suggesting witness tampering.
The court determined that prolonged detention does not automatically entitle an accused to bail when substantial evidence of guilt exists, underscoring the rights to a speedy trial within serious cri....
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
