Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Mohammad Kamal And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|31 July, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5793/2017 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5754/2017 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5892/2017 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6061/2017 IN CRL.P. NO.5793/2017 BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMAD KAMAL S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED 31 YEARS R/AT #1-54 K.C.ROAD, KALLADKA GOLTHAMAJAL VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. – 574 222.
2. IMTHIYAZ @ MAHAMMAD IMTHIYAZ S/O ABUBAKKAR AGED 28 YEARS R/AT #1-95 K.C.ROAD, KALLADKA GOLTHAMAJAL VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. – 574 222.
3. JAINUDDEEN K.C. S/O SULAIMAN AGED 29 YEARS R/AT 1-134 GOLTHAMAJAL VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. – 574 222.
4. JOFER @ JAFAR S/O ABUBAKKAR AGED 30 YEARS R/AT #1-26 K.C.ROAD, KALLADKA GOLTHAMAJAL VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K. – 574 222.
5. ZAMEER S/O B.K.ISMAIL AGED 26 YEARS R/AT RAYAPPA KODI, KARIGANA AMTOOR, KARIGANGA BANTWAL TALUK D.K. – 574 222.
6. MAHAMMAD SAVOOD S/O ABDUL KUNHI AGED 30 YEARS R/AT # 2-224 VEERAKAMBA BANTWAL TALUK D.K. – 574 200 7. MAHAMMAD ASIF S/O G.A.ABDUL KHADAR AGED 30 YEARS R/AT #5-244, GOLTHAMAJAL NEAR SEECO BEEDI, GOLTHAMAJAL KALLADKA, BANTWAL TALUK D.K. – 574 222. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ABDUL ANSAR P., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWALA TOWN P.S. D.K., REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) IN CRL.P. NO.5754/2017 BETWEEN:
ISMAIL @ ISAQ @ ISMAIL ISAQ S/O ABOOBAKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDING AT KRISHANAKODI HOUSE GOLTHAMAJALU VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK D.K.DISTRICT – 575 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, BANTWALA TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) IN CRL.P. NO.5892/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SAMAD @ ABDUL SAMAD S/O ABUSALI AGED 19 YEARS R/AT CITY PLAZA, KALLADKA GOLTHAMAJAL VILLAGE – 574 222 BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.
2. SIRAJ @ SIRAJUDDIN S/O MOHAMMAD AGED 22 YEARS R/AT MADAKA HOUSE, KALLADKA GOLTHAMAJAL VILLAGE – 574 222 BANTWAL TALUK, D.K. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ABDUL ANSAR P., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWALA TOWN P.S. D.K.
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) IN CRL.P. NO.6061/2017:
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMAD ARIFF S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.2-99B, ELEVEN STAR APARTMENTS K.C.ROAD GOLTHAMAJALU VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUKA DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
2. ABOOBAKKAR SIDDIQ @ SIDDIKUL AKBAR S/O SULAIMAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O DOOR NO.1-225 NURABAILU HOUSE GOLTHAMAJALU VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUKA DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 211.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAVINDRA B.DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BUNTWALA TOWN POLICE STATION DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 574 211 (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001).
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) …RESPONDENT THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.152/2017 OF BUNTWALA TOWN POLICE STATION, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 504, 333, 324, 353, 427, 153A, 307 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners are arraigned as accused persons in the FIR submitted by the respondent-police in Cr.No.152/2017 registered by the respondent-police for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 333, 324, 353, 427, 153-A, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
3. The allegation of the prosecution is, the members of the rival communities were indulged in pelting stones against each other; the police were targeted and the police vehicles were damaged during the incident.
4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submits, subsequent to the arrest, no incriminating material is seized at the instance of any of the accused. Having regard to the nature of the allegation, the petitioners detention is not required during the further course of investigation.
5. Learned Government Pleader while opposing the petitions submits that Bhantwal Taluk is inflicted with the criminal cases and murders due to communal rivalry. These petitioners though not named in the FIR, were identified on the basis of the CCTV footage. Though no incriminating material is seized from their possession, it is highly probable that if enlarged on bail at this stage, they will perpetuate the offence, endanger the life of the public. Totally 10 cases of similar nature is registered by the respondent-police. It requires time for the Investigating Officer to examine the complicity of these petitioners in other criminal cases to seek body warrant for their production in the said cases.
However, having regard to the nature of the allegation, it is felt that the petitioners are not required to be in judicial custody only for the purpose of investigation and if the apprehension expressed by the HCGP is addressed, there is no impediment to allow the petition.
Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.152/2017 of respondent- police, subject to the following conditions:
(i) They shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one local surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
The surety shall produce his original title deeds pertaining to the immovable properties and his identity/Aadhar card for perusal of the Court. He must not have previous history of offering surety to any accused in any other criminal case so far.
(ii) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the respondent- Investigating Officer on every Tuesday for another three months or until filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier.
(iii) They shall not indulge in identical activities and shall maintain themselves as law abiding citizens.
Any deviation of the above conditions entitles the Investigating Officer to seek for cancellation of bail from the concerned court.
Dvr:
Sd/- JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mohammad Kamal And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
31 July, 2017
Judges
  • Rathnakala