Denying Bail For Offence Yet To Be Investigated Merely Because Accused Is Habitual Offender Is "Unjust": Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has observed that merely because a person is alleged to be habitual offenders or have criminal antecedents, keeping them in jail for an offence which is yet to be investigated is 'unjust'. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing the petition filed by one Injamam Shariff and granted him bail. The accused was arrested...
The Karnataka High Court has observed that merely because a person is alleged to be habitual offenders or have criminal antecedents, keeping them in jail for an offence which is yet to be investigated is 'unjust'.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing the petition filed by one Injamam Shariff and granted him bail. The accused was arrested for offences punishable under section Sections 397 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Details:
As per the complaint registered by one T.S.Manoj on 25.02.2022, alleging that two unknown persons came on a motorcycle, caught hold of his collar and him with a knife. At the same time, the other person snatched away his mobile phone.
After about a week of registration of the complaint, the Police arrested the petitioner on 02-03-2022 and since then, the petitioner is in judicial custody. The accused sought bail from the Sessions Judge. However, the application came to be rejected considering the objections of the State on the ground that the petitioner was a habitual offender having criminal antecedents and is likely to commit similar offence if he is released on bail.
Petitioner submitted that the allegations against him are bald and there is no recovery of the phone made from him.
Prosecution opposed the plea stating that the matter is under investigation and when the investigation was on, the petitioner was apprehended on the ground that he has criminal antecedents and is a habitual offender. If he is released on bail he is likely to commit the very same offence that he has committed.
Court findings:
The bench on going through the facts of the case said, "The reasoning rendered by the learned Sessions Judge is fundamentally flawed." It added, "There is no recovery of the phone made from the hands of the petitioner. Though the matter is still under investigation FIR being filed against unknown persons, merely because the petitioner and another are alleged to be habitual offenders or have criminal antecedents, the petitioner remaining in jail for the offence which is yet to be investigated is unjust. There is not even a prima facie material against the petitioner."
Accordingly It granted bail on personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000 with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. It also Imposed other conditions.
Case Title: INJAMAM SHARIFF v State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4045/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
Date of Order: 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
Appearance: Advocate BOPANNA.B for petitioner
Advocate SHANKAR H.S for respondent