Allowed

Faruq Saudhagar S/O Razawalla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2021CRL.P/100312/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to accused No.6 in an offence of snatching and robbery pending investigation. The court imposed strict conditions including personal bond, surrender, non-tampering, and attendance for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to executing personal bond with sureties, surrender within 15 days, not tampering with witnesses, no further offences, and regular attendance for interroga

Faruq Saudhagar S/O Razawalla Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100312/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

FARUQ SAUDHAGAR,S/O.RAZAWALLA, AGE-35 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS PAN SHOP, R/O. KATTI GALLI, OPP-TEMPU STAND, SIRSI-581401, (AS PER REMAND YADI DTD.23.1.2021)

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI B.ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH OLD HUBBALLI POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 001.

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY MS.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.9/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI OFFENCES

¶15

¶16

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 394 AND 395 OF IPC PENDING INVESTIGATION OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION being heard on 17.02.2021 and reserved for orders, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under

¶19

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.9/2019 for the offence under Section 394, 395 of IPC registered by the Old Hubli police station, pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Ahammed Razaq Bonge, the police registered a case against two unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC. It is averred by the complainant that on 21.01.2019, on the instruction of the owner of complainant he came to Hubli and collected `35,00,000/- from one Bharat of Vinayak Jewellers and he was traveling in a KSRTC Bus, two unknown persons were sitting in the Bus picked up quarrel with him and snatched away the said amount from the complainant. After registering the case, the police said to have apprehended 4 persons and recovered some

¶21

¶22

documents from them. And on the voluntary statement made by the co-accused the police making ectic efforts to arrest these petitioners, hence he has approached the Sessions Judge for granting of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Hence he is before this Court.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits he is innocent with the alleged offence. His name is falsely implicated in this case. There is no allegation against this petitioner, there is no recovery. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

¶24

4. Per Contra , the learned HCGP objected the bail petition and contended that this accused also received `12,50,000/- from the co-accused. He is required for the purpose of custodial interrogation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶25

On perusal of the records, which shows a complaint came to be lodged against 2 unknown persons on 21.01.2019 for robbing of cash `35,00,000/-. The police arrested accused Nos.1 to 4 on 11.1.2021 and obtained the body warrant of accused No.5 on

¶26

¶27

19.1.2021 and produced him before the Court. This petitioner/accused No.6 shown as absconding. Except, the voluntary statement of the co-accused, there is no other material against this accused at present. Looking to the date of the complaint and recovery of `7,00,000/- from accused Nos.1 to 4 that too some documents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would cause to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The respondent-police is directed to release the petitioner/accused No.6 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.9/2019 registered for the offence punishable 394 and 395 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶30

i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the IO.

¶31

¶32

ii. The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

iii. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses/evidence directly or indirectly.

¶34

iv. The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶35

v. The petitioner is deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶36

vi. Petitioner shall before the IO on every day between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. For a period of one week for the purpose of interrogation/investigation and thereafter he shall mark his attendance on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. For a period of three months or till filing of charge sheet, whichever is earlier.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

CKK

Faruq Saudhagar S/O Razawalla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faruq Saudhagar S/O Razawalla 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

Sri.Thippeswamy S/O Lingadalyappa, Vs M/S.Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited

Shivappa Sajjanar S/O Basappa Sajjanar Vs State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O. Kuberappa Menashikal Vs the State of Karnataka

P Kumaraswamy S/O Poojar Narasappa Vs the State of

Rahul S/O Maruti Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sumitra W/O Kallayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka