IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7805/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Jafar Shareef @ Jafar, S/o S. Ibrahim, Aged about 34 years, R/at: Ramanagara House, Near School, Goltamajal Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. District – 574 222.
2. Nazeer @ Kunigal, S/o Abubakkar, Aged about 28 years, R/at: Manimajalu house, Goltamajal Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K.District – 574 222.
3. Mohammed Rasheed @ Rasheed Baba, S/o Abubakkar, Aged about 22 years, R/at: Manimajalu house, Goltamajal Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K.District – 574 222.
…Petitioners (By Sri.Lethif B., Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Bantwal Town Police Station, D.K.District, Rep. by SPP, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP) ….Respondent This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.150/2017 of Buntwala Town police station, D.K. District for the offences P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC and Section 2 (a) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3, 7 and 8 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking Anticipatory bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC and Section 2 (a) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 registered by respondent police station, crime No.150/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused Nos.3, 7 and 8, so also the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials and the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the present petitioners.
4. Looking to the complaint allegations, it is stated that because of the communal disturbances, the accused persons were insisting and pressurizing the complainant and shop owners to close their shops. The further allegations is that they have tresspassed into the shop of the complainant and abused him as to why he has opened the shop. They threw out the articles kept in the said shop and caused loss to the extent of Rs.500/-. They also threatened that if the shop is not closed they would eliminate him and made the complainant to close the door of the shop forcibly. On the basis of said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences.
Looking to the date of the alleged incident and the complaint filed, there is a delay of ten days in lodging the complaint. Apart from that, in the complaint, it is mentioned that it was a group of people who were forcing the shop owners to close their shops. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated in the said case and they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.
Learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that police report goes to show that in Bantwal Taluk there is so many criminal communal classes took place. There are two deaths in the earlier period and if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may involve in committing similar offences. Hence, he sought for rejecting the bail.
Perusing the materials placed on record so also delay of ten days in lodging the complaint, I am of the opinion that they may be enlarged on bail by imposing the reasonable conditions.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners – accused No.3, 7 and 8 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC and Section 2 (a) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act registered in respondent - police station Crime No.150/2017, subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 7 and 8 have to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and has to furnish one surety each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
b) Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 7 and 8 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
c) Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 7 and 8 have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
d) Petitioners/Accused Nos.3, 7 and 8 have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute their respective personal and surety bonds.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-