High CourtsSingle Bench

Nazeem Alias Azim Pasha vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 2 December 2011 · Citation: (2011) 12 KAR CK 0239

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.V. Pinto, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 392
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 6171 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 298 words

B.V. Pinto

1.

This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No. 155/2011 of Lashkar police etation, Mysore City registered on 03.09.2011 for the offence punishable U/s. 392 of IPC.

2.

It is the case of the complainant Sri. Siddaraju that, on 02.09.2011 at about 7.00 a.m., when the petitioner was walking in front of Sangam theater, Mysore city, four persons came and surrounded him and by showing knife they snatched Rs. 500/-. Nokia Mobile phone from his pocket and his teeth fell down, on the basic of which, complaint is filed.

3.

Heard Sri. Nataraju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vijaykumar Majage, learned HCGP for the State/Respondent.

4.

The learned HCGP submits that, there are no other cases pending against the petitioner.

5.

Having regard to the fact that, the offence is triable by learned Magistrate, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs. . 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court below and subject to following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall appear before the police station once in a week for a period of four weeks and thereafter, once in a month till disposal of the case.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any other cases.

iii) If is found that, that the petitioner is involved in other cases or any other case is pending against him, the State is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail and the Court before which such an application is filed shall pass appropriate orders without reference to this Court.

iv) the petitioner shall not temper with the prosecution witnesses.