Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Abdul Razak Vs. State of Karnataka

Abdul Razak vs State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided May 03, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/919782

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2500/2011
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

This Cri.P. is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.53/2011 of Vittal P.5., D.K., for the offences P/U/S 399 ANF 402 IPC.

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 399 and 402

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Razak

Advocate Sri.Rahul Pai.K, Adv

Respondent

State of Karnataka

Advocate SRI. S. RAJASUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 399 and 402

Excerpt

this cri.p. is filed under section 439 cr.p.c. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in cr.no.53/2011 of vittal p.5., d.k., for the offences p/u/s 399 anf 402 ipc......apprehended only three persons, while two escaped. 5. i am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel that there is possibility of the police officers reacting to the legal action initiated on behalf of the first accused abubacker in w.p.no.55/2011 to implicate him and the petitioner. this court issued the writ of habeas corpus for his release from illegal custody and soon thereafter, this case was registered. i do not wish to comment on the other circumstances but from what is manifest, i jo not find the prosecution case is so strong as to deny the liberty, which the petitioner is entitled to. 6. hence, i pass the following order:-petition is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:- (i) petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional magistrate or the learned trial judge if the case is committed. he shall not tamper or indulge or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses. he shall not leave the place without prior  permission  from  the jurisdictional magistrate. he shall mark his attendance before the s.h.o., of the concerned police station once in 15 days i.e., on saturdays between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. till the commencement of trial.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Petitioner is accused No.2 in judicial custody aurmg investigation in Cr.No.53/11 for offences pumshable untie1-Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.

2. Heard.

3. On a suo-motto complaint of the police officer, a case came to be registered on the allegation that on 24.03.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., five persons were waiting in the car bearing No.KA-05 P 5394 armed with deadly weapons at a place called Myra at Kepu village, Bantwal taluk. Their intention was to commit dacoity. The officials of Vitla police station apprehended them and seized several objects from their possession. From the petitioner, a stick is recovered. They are alleged to be armed to commit dacoity. This is the charge.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out to the face that recovery from the petitioner is only a stick. Abdul Razak and one more person Abubackar are said to be in the car. In all five are said to be involved, but the police have apprehended only three persons, while two escaped.

5. I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that there is possibility of the police officers reacting to the legal action initiated on behalf of the first accused Abubacker in W.P.No.55/2011 to implicate him and the petitioner. This Court issued the writ of Habeas Corpus for his release from illegal custody and soon thereafter, this case was registered. I do not wish to comment on the other circumstances but from what is manifest, i Jo not find the prosecution case is so strong as to deny the liberty, which the petitioner is entitled to.

6. Hence, I pass the following order:-Petition is allowed and bail is granted to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate or the learned trial Judge if the case is committed.

He shall not tamper or indulge or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses.

He shall not leave the place without prior  permission  from  the jurisdictional Magistrate.

He shall mark his attendance before the S.H.O., of the concerned police station once in 15 days i.e., on Saturdays between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. till the commencement of trial.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial