Allowed

Mohammad Sameer S/O. Hussainbasha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2018CRL.P/101165/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed by six accused persons facing charges including hate speech, criminal intimidation, and offences under the Prevention of Atrocities Ordinance. The court held that prima facie the Atrocities Ordinance cannot be invoked to deny bail without prejudice. Bail was granted subject to a personal bond and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- each with one surety of like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to conditions. Violation o

Mohammad Sameer S/O. Hussainbasha Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶6

Crl.P.No.101165 of 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammad Sameer S/o.Hussainbasha, Age 24 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.: Vaddarahatti Camp, Tq.: Gangavati, Dist.: Koppal-583235.

¶9

Tajuddin S/o.Hassan Sab, Age 45 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.: Vaddarahatti Camp, Tq.: Gangavati, Dist.: Koppal-583235.

¶10

Mohammad S/o. Davalsab, Age 49 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.: Vaddarahatti Camp, Tq.: Gangavati, Dist.: Koppal-583235.

¶11

Sajid S/o.Peer Mohammada Jakkali, Age 25 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.: Vaddarahatti Camp, Tq.: Gangavati, Dist.: Koppal-583235.

¶12

Rahim @ Rehamansab S/o.Kootubuddin, Age 24 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.: Lingaraj Camp, Tq.: Gangavati, Dist.: Koppal-583235.

¶13

Sharuka @ Shek Hussain S/o.Rahimsab @ Rehamansab, Age 22 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.: Lingaraj Camp, Tq.: Gangavati, Dist.: Koppal-583235.

¶14

… Petitioners

¶15

(By Shri M.H. Patil, Advocate)

¶16

: 2 :

¶17

And:

¶18

The State of Karnataka, Through Ganagavati Town Police Station, Gangavati, Dist.: Koppal, Rep. By its SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad.

¶19

… Respondent

¶20

(By Shri Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)

¶21

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in Gangavati Town Police Station Crime No.197 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 355, 504, 506, 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5A) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Ordinance, 2014 directing the respondent to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the above said crime, at the event of his arrest.

¶22

This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Gangavathi Town P.S., Crime No.197 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5A) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Ordinance, 2014.

¶25

: 3 :

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that on 14.05.2018 at about 8:00 a.m. when the complainant was indulged in walking at Vaddarahatti Camp, the accused persons by forming unlawful assembly came over to the complainant and abused him in filthy language by taking his caste name and further the accused have threatened to his life and also put threat of setting fire to his office and also to his colony. The accused by name Jahirkhan and Sameer both together beaten up the complainant with footwear, pulled up the complainant by caught holding the shirt of the complainant and caused threat of assaulting by engaging the people of Islampur.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not at all committed any of the offences. The He further submits that there are no prima-facie ingredients of offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5A) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Ordinance, 2014. Hence, prays for allowing the bail petition.

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition filed by the petitioners and prays for dismissal of the bail petition filed by them.

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

In the context and circumstances of the case, the allegations are to be assessed during the trial. Prima facie at this stage, the provisions of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Ordinance, 2014 are not applicable to the case on hand to deny the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Thus, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution in case the bail petition is allowed. However, the apprehension of the prosecution would be resolved by imposing conditions. Hence, the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in Crime No.197 of 2018 of Gangavathi Town P.S. registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 355, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5A) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Ordinance, 2014, they shall be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

with one surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to following conditions:

¶35

The petitioners shall not tamper or terrorize the persecution witnesses in any manner.

¶36

The Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday in between 05:00 p.m. and 06:00 p.m. till filing of final report against the petitioners.

¶37

Violation of any of the above conditions, the relief granted is liable to be cancelled.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Vnp*

Mohammad Sameer S/O. Hussainbasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Sameer S/O. Hussainbasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subbanagouda S/O Ramanagoud Badnur Vs Renuka W/O Late Babu @ Baabugouda Badnur

Sumangala Kom Mallanagouda Patil Vs Mallanagouda Rudragouda Patil

Smt. Usha W/O Anilkumar Naik Vs Shri Anilkumar S/O Narayan Naik

Manjunath @ Kadamanja S/O Shyamanna Nayak @Bhavani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Vijayendra S/O Prahladacharya Panchamukhi Vs Smt. Renuka W/O Vijayendar Panchamukhi

Sri. Shekarappa S/O Shanmukhappa Harlapur Vs the State of Karnataka