Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Mohammed Hisham Veerakamba S/o Mohamed Abdul Rahman – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek bail due to various procedural delays. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. details of the theft incident and accused involvement. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. court grants bail under specific conditions. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
1. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in Crime No.31 of 2025 registered by Ankola Police Station, Karwar Sub-Division, Uttara Kannada District for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (2), 109, 115(2), 126(2), 140(2), 310(2), 311, 312, 317(3), 351(2) and 352 of the BNS , 2023 and Section 25(1)(b) of the Indian ARMS ACT , 1959, are before this Court in the above captioned two petitions filed under Sections 482 and 483 of BNS S, 2023 seeking anticipatory bail and regular bail respectively.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.31 of 2025 was registered by Ankola Police Station, Karwar Sub-Division, Uttara Kannada District, for the aforesaid offences against five strangers, who came in a Swift Car, based on the first information dated 17.02.2025 received from Mohammad Ishak S/o. J. Abdul Khadar. During the course of investigation, accused Nos.2 and 4 were arrested on 03.04.2025 and subsequently remanded
Delay in filing FIR, alongside previous bail grants to co-accused, justified the granting of anticipatory and regular bail to the petitioners despite their criminal antecedents.
Repeated anticipatory bail applications without a change in circumstances can be considered an abuse of the court process.
Accused praying for anticipatory bail has to make out more than a prima facie case of false implication – Grant of anticipatory bail is not a matter of course.
Abuse of the process of the Court by filing subsequent/successive anticipatory bail applications without justification.
An accused cannot seek anticipatory bail for newly added serious charges without challenging the prior bail order; the court emphasized the need for proper legal recourse.
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted based on vague allegations or blanket requests, as it undermines the investigation process.
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
