Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/9567/2016 of KUTUBERABBANI Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 29 December 2016
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9567/2016 BETWEEN: KUTUBERABBANI S/O ALLAUDDIN MULLA, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NEAR BILAL MASJID, WARD NO.X, BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT.
IN THER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29[TH]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010)
BEFORE:|
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR|
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9567/2016
BETWEEN
KUTUBBRABBANI9/O ALLAUDDIN MULLA,AGE: 37 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS,R/O NEAR BILAL MASJID,WARD NO.X,BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT. _.. PHTITIONER
(By Sri. S B HEBBALLI, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,BAGALKOT TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY|THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THEADVOCATRH FOR THR’ PRTITIONBR PRAYING THAT THIHON BLE COURT MAY BRK PLEASED TO BENLARGE THPETR. ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HISARREST IN CR. NO.85/2016 OF BAGALKOT TOWN P.58., BAGALKOT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,465,468,470|R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused undersection 438 of Cr.P.C in Crime No.89/2016 of Bagalkot Town.Police Station, for the alleged offences punishable undersections 420, 4605, 4608 and 4/70 read with Section 34 of IPCTherefore, petitioner is seeking for anticipatory bail in theevent of his arrest among the grounds urged therein.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedHigh Court Govt. Pleader for the respondent. |
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for |the petitioner contended that the accused is an innocent |person and he was only discharging his duty as per theinstructions issued by his employer-Karvi Association. He |was issuing Adhar Card and Pan Card as per the instructionsof his employer. Seizure of blank domicile certificate itself suggests that the petitioner has not at all committed the)alleged offence as he had no direct role in the commission ofoffence. The anticipatory bail petition has been rejected bythe Court below without assigning proper reasons. The)petitioner hails from respectable family and he has beenfalsely implicated in the alleged offence as he is an employeeof Karvi Association. Moreover, the accused is ready to abideby any terms and conditions imposed by this Court.Therefore, learned counsel is praying for considering thesrounds urged in this petition and for grant of bail.
4. Per contra, learned Govt. Pleader for the respondent,submitted that there are primafacie material against the|accused as he was issuing fake Adhar card and Pan cardbeing an employee of Karvi Association. Thereby, he is|cheating the Government. Blank torged Domicile Certificateshave been seized by the Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot.Petitioner is absconding and that itself indicates that thereisprima-tacie material against the accused to commit thealleged offence. Therefore, Court below has rightly rejected the bail petition of the accused. Learned High Court Govt.Pleader submits that if the accused is released on bail,certainly he would come in the way of the prosecution case|and destroy the evidence. Therefore, accused does not)deserve bail.
Oo. Having regard to the submissions of the learned|counsel for the petitioner/accused and learned High CourtGovt. Pleader, it is relevant to consider that on the basis of acomplaint lodged by the Assistant Commissioner, anauthority, a case has been registered against the accused forthe alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468and 470 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, subsequent|to registration of the case, it is under investigation and itrequires recording statement of witnesses and collecting|material documents. Therefore, at this stage, allegations|made in the complaint does not require detailed discussion|while considering bail petition filed by accused. The)apprehension of learned Govt. Pleader could be suitably met with by imposing appropriate conditions to safeguard the)interest of the prosecution. |
6. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as in thecircumstances, I am of the considered opinion that theaccused person deserves bail. Hence, I proceed to pass thefollowing:
ORDER
The Petition is hereby allowed subject to following.conditions:
&)+Petitioner-accusedshallAPPCa IbeforetheInvestigating officer1N CrimeNo.89/2016|ot Bagalkot Town Police Station within 20 days from|the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by’executing a personal bond for a sum of 90,000/- |(Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety for the|like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O in the event of.his arrest.Investigating officer1N CrimeNo.89/2016|ot Bagalkot Town Police Station within 20 days from|the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by’executing a personal bond for a sum of 90,000/- |(Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety for the|like sum to the satisfaction of the I.O in the event of.his arrest.
&))+Petitioner-accusedshallco-operate.withthe.investigatingofficer|duringtheCOUT SEot|investigatingofficer|duringtheCOUT SEot|
investigation.
&)))+Petitioner-accused shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution witnesses.
&)A+Petitioner-accused shall mark his attendance once in fortnight as per English monthly calendar between|10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., for a period of three|months before the concerned SHO.
&A+Petitioner-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
84AG
Sd/-JUDGE|