Allowed

B.Imran S/O B. Jameel Sab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 May 2019CRL.P/100774/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail petition filed by accused No.3 in a case involving obstruction of police officers was allowed. Court imposed stringent conditions including personal bond, surrender timeline, prohibition on tampering with witnesses, and cooperation with investigations.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner-accused No.3 released on anticipatory bail subject to execution of personal bond, surrender within 15 days, no tampering with witnesses, no leaving jurisdiction without permission, cooperat

B.Imran S/O B. Jameel Sab Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MAY 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

CRL.P. NO.100774 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

B.IMRAN S/O B. JAMEEL SAB AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: WARD NO.24, JUMMA MASJID STREET, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. M L VANTI, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA PSI, BELLARI CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, RPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN BALLARI CEN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.13/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V-ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 78(3) OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT, 1963 AND SEC. 353 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 438 of CR.P.C. seeking to release him on Anticipatory Bail in CEN Police Station Crime No.13/2019 dated 29.03.2019 for the offences punishable under Section353 R/W Section 34 of IPC and under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

¶20

The gist of the complaint is that on 29.03.2019 when the complainant was in the Police Station he received the credible information stating that some persons are playing Mataka in Javari Street at Cowl Bazaar, Ballari. The Complainant immediately after receipt of the credible information, along with his staff and pancha witness rushed to the spot. Immediately he caught hold the accused No.1 and other

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

three persons ranaway from the spot forcibly pushing the police persons and have obstructed the Police persons from discharging their public duties. Thereafter the Police Inspector seized cash of Rs.31,670/- from the petitioner-accused No.1 and registered case against the petitioner and other three persons.

¶23

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 that the petitioneraccused No.3 is innocent, the entire complaint speaks about the non-cognizable offence. The Investigating officer in order to over come the procedural hurdles as contemplated under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. has falsely registered case under Section 353 of the IPC. Further allegation that the deterring the public servant from discharging his duty is general one, it is not specifically mentioned. The investigating officer at the instigation of the ill-wishers and politically influenced persons has filed false complaint against the petitioner-accused

¶24

: 4 :

¶25

No.3. The alleged offences are not exclusively

¶26

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds he prays to allow the bail petition.

¶27

Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently

¶28

argued that the bail petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the said application is liable to be dismissed. He further contended that in the present case the petitioner has obstructed the police persons while discharging their public duties by forcible pushing

¶29

them at the spot when they went to caught hold the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out the specific grounds for grant of anticipatory bail. At this stage, if the bail is granted to the petitioner-accused No.3 he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses, he may again abscond and he may hamper trial of the case. Hence, he is not entitled for anticipatory bail and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶30

: 5 :

¶31

I have carefully and cautiously gone through

¶32

the records and arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 and learned HCGP.

¶33

On close reading of the contents of the complaint the main allegation is that the Police officials when they went and made raid, at that time accused No.1 was apprehended by police staff and other three persons ran away from the spot forcibly pushing the police persons and they also have obstructed the Police persons from discharging their public duties and Police Inspector has seized cash of Rs.31,670/- from the petitioner-accused No.3. The allegations are general in nature. The said offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under the facts and

¶34

circumstances of the case, I feel by putting some stringent conditions, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The petitioner-accused No.3 is ordered to be

¶40

released on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in CEN Police Station Crime No.13/2019 for the offences punishable under Section 353 R/W Section 34 of IPC and under Section 78(3) of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 with the following conditions.

¶41

(i) The petitioner-accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶42

(ii) He shall surrender before the investigating officer within 15 days from today.

¶43

(iii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶44

(iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶45

: 7 :

¶46

(v) He shall co-operate with the investigating officer. He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when he is requested.

¶47

(vi) He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days till the charge sheet is filed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Hmb

B.Imran S/O B. Jameel Sab v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Imran S/O B. Jameel Sab 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

Abdul Karim Rehman Qureshi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Sunil S/O Shankrayya Sadashivpeth Vs Shri.Harunsab S/O Dawalsab Dhamanekar

Shri.Channappa S/O Fakeerappa Rathod Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Nagaratna @ Paramma W/O Channappa Korishettar Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Indian Products Private Limited, Vs State of Karnataka

Shri.Mangesh Balakrishna Kekare Vs the State of Karnataka