SUMAIRA FATIMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Pakistani national, is before this court in this petition under S. 482 of the Cr. P. C. praying setting aside the order dated 13-9-2005 passed by the 12th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Cri. R. P. No. 15014/2005, refusing to set aside the order dated 10-2-2005 passed by the Traffic Court-I, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 437/2004, rejecting the application for discharge of the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts giving raise to this petition briefly stated are to the effect that the petitioner, being a Pakistani national, came to india on 11-6-2004 and she was permitted to stay up to 25-7-2004. The Inspector of police, Kadugondanahalli Police Station, found that the petitioner had over-stayed till 28-7-2004 without having a proper residential permit and, therefore, he submitted f. I. R. and a case was registered in F. I. R. No. 288/2004 for the offence under clause 7 (2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 read with s. 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Following the charge-sheet being laid, the petitioner was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate traffic Court-I, Bangalore, and she made an application for grant of bail, which was allowed subject to certain conditions and the petitioner also made an application under S. 239 of the Cr. P. C. praying the trial Court to discharge her from the case. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 10-2-2005, declined to discharge her and dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order as well as the conditions imposed by the trial Court while granting her bail, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge under Ss. 397 and 399 of the Cr. P. C. and sought for setting aside the order dated 10-2-2005 and to allow her application filed for discharge. The learned Sessions Judge, in Cri. R. P. No. 15014/2005, by his order dated 13-9-2005, refused to interfere with the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, declining to discharge the petitioner. It is this order of the learned Sessions Judge that is impugned in this petition.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for the State and carefully perused the material placed on record, including the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge in the revision petition and that of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate refusing to discharge the petitioner from the criminal case, as well as the objections filed by the State.