Allowed

Mr Amanul Haseen v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2021CRL.P/2016/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed two criminal petitions for anticipatory bail. The court granted bail subject to stringent conditions including executing a bond, surrendering within 15 days, not tampering with witnesses, and adhering to state guidelines, noting the absence of specific overt acts against the petitioners personally.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to execution of bond, surrender within 15 days, and prohibition on tampering witnesses or committing further offences.

Mr Amanul Haseen Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1817/2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITON No.2016/2021

¶7

IN CRL.P.No.1817/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

Mr.Mohammed Fazil, S/o Mr.Abdul Hameed, Aged about 20 years, R/at Door No.8-12-882/9, 1^st Floor, A.R.Cottage, Rahmath Nagar, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K. District – 575 001.

¶10

Mr.Mohammed Salih, S/o Mr.B.Abdul Khadar, Aged about 66 years, R/at Door No.18-2-16, 2^nd Floor, Aysha Apartment, Sturrock Road, Falnir, Mangalore, D.K. District –575 001.

¶11

..Petitioners

¶12

(By Sri. Sachin.B.S., Advocate)

¶13

¶14

AND:

¶15

State of Karnataka, Mangaluru South Police Station, Mangaluru, D.K. District –575 001. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore –560 001.

¶16

..Respondent

¶17

(By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

¶18

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.132/2019 of Mangalore North P.S., Mangalore City For the offences P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 506, 427, 353, 332, 307, 120B, 109 read with 149 of IPC and Section 2A, 2B of K.P.D.L.P. Act.

¶19

IN CRL.P.No.2016/2021

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

Mr. Amanul Haseen, S/o K Abdul Hameed, Aged about 19 years, R/at Door No.8-10-784/5, Flat No.203, Asco Flat, A1 Amin Nagar, Karbala Road, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K. District -575 001.

¶22

Mr. Abdul Lathef, S/o Ismail, Aged about 33 years,

¶23

¶24

R/at Door No.8-11-918/A, Puslar Galli, Kasaba Bazar, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K.District – 575 001.

¶25

Mohammed Hifaz, S/o Mr. Abdhul Hameed, Aged about 22 years, R/at Door No.8-130-954/1, Opp. Jamia Masjid, Karbala Road, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K. – 575 003.

¶26

Mohammed Jaleel Safwan, S/o Ahmed Bava, Aged about 27 years, R/at Door No.10-3-125, Haji Abbas Compound, Kasaigalli Road, Mangalore, D.K. – 575 001.

¶27

Thouseef Ahammed, S/o Siddique, Aged about 27 years, R/at Door No.8-13-951/1, Karbala Road, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K.

¶28

Tanzeer Ahmed, S/o Jamal, Aged about 36 years, R/at Door No.596-MCC, Mangalore, D.K. – 575 001.

¶29

Mohammed Noushim, S/o Abusali,

¶30

¶31

Aged about 27 years, R/at Door No.8-14-1275, Monaka Compound, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K. -575 001.

¶32

Mohammed Nowfal, S/o Mr.Mohammed and Mrs. Rukiya, Aged about 25 years, R/at Door No.8-13-1061, Anjuman Compound, Bokkapatna, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K.–575 001.

¶33

Mohammed Safwan, S/o Mohammed Iqbal, Aged about 24 years, R/at Door No.9-18-662/4, Puslar Galli, Kasaba Bazar, K R S Building, Ansari Road, Bunder, Mangalore, D.K. –575 001.

¶34

Mohammed Haris, S/o S. Ismail, Aged about 25 years, R/at Door No.8-14-1231/4, Azifmanzil, CPC Compound, Karbala Road, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K. –575 001.

¶35

Ashraf, S/o Ibrahim, Aged about 40 years, R/at Door No.8-5-347/2/1, Coppala Compound, Kudroli,

¶36

¶37

Mangalore, D.K. – 575 001. 12. Mohammed Sarvan, S/o Ismail, Aged about 20 years, R/at Door No.810757/22, Fouzia Manzil, Moidin Nagara, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K. – 575 001.

¶38

Mohammed Afrid, S/o Abdul Hameed, Aged about 22 years, R/at Door No.8141187, Kathumbi Compound, Karbala Road, Kudroli, Mangalore, D.K. – 575 001. ..Petitioners (By Sri.Sachin B.S., Advocate)

¶39

AND:

¶40

State of Karnataka, Mangaluru South Police Station, Mangaluru, D.K. District – 575 001. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶41

..Respondent

¶42

(By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

¶43

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.240/2019 registered

¶44

¶45

by Mangalore South Police Station, D.K. District For the offences P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 152, 324, 353, 332, 307, 120(B), 109 read with 149 of IPC and Section 2(A) and 2(B) of K.P.D.L.P. Act.

¶46

These Criminal petitions coming on for Orders , this day, the Court made the following:

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

Criminal petition No.1817/2021 is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.9 and 11 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting them anticipatory bail in Crime No.240/2019 registered by Mangalore South Police, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 152, 324, 353, 332, 307, 120B, 109 read with Section149 of IPC and under Section 2/A, 2B of The Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

¶49

Criminal Petition No.2016/2021 is filed by

¶50

the accused Nos. 26, 28, 31, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 50, 52, 54 and 70 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting them anticipatory bail in Crime No.132/2019

¶51

¶52

registered by Mangalore North Police, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 152, 324, 353, 332, 307, 120B, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 2A, 2B of The Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981.

¶53

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶54

The case of the prosecution in

¶55

Crl.P.No.1817/2021 is that on the complaint received from one Chandrashekar, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mangaluru South, a case was registered against unknown 500 persons alleging that on 18.12.2019 from 9.00 P.M. to till mid-night on 20.12.2019, prohibitory order was imposed and there was a protest against the passing of Citizenship Amendment Act, wherein a group of more than 300 to 500 persons gathered at Rao and

¶56

¶57

Rao Circle to protest the said bill, they turned violent and started pelting stones and soda bottles, attempted to damage the public property and also attempted to attack the police vehicle and tried to commit murder.

¶58

The case of the prosecution in Crl.P.No.2016/2021 is that the Commissioner of Police in order to maintain peace and tranquility imposed prohibitory orders in the city from 9.00 a.m. of 18.12.2019 to midnight 00.00 hours on 20.12.2019. The police officer and staffs were deputed for bundobust. On 19.12.2019 when he was on bundobust along with his staff, near D.C.Office, Hamilton Circle, at about 2.30 p.m., a group of 500 people being the leaders, members and workers of PFI and SDPI and other Muslim organization, gathered together and started shouting slogans against the Central Government and the police and forming an unlawful assembly, started pelting stones, soda bottles and

¶59

¶60

some of the them were armed with wooden clubs. At that time, complainant along with his staff, tried to convince them to disseminate the mob by making them to understand about the imposition of prohibitory orders and consequences of forming unlawful assembly. Even after several request of the complainant, the mob failed to listen to the words of police and started pelting stones and caused injuries. The mob also damaged the State Bank of India building by causing damage to the public properties.

¶61

After registering the case, the police have filed the charge sheet and the accused persons are absconding. Hence, they are before this Court.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶63

that the Petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶64

¶65

Per contra, the learned HCGP strongly objects to the bail petition.

¶66

Upon hearing the arguments of learned

¶67

counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, it shows that there were no specific allegations against any of the petitioners regarding their overtact. More than 500 members belonged to the rival group agitated against the Central Government with regard to passing enactment bills of CAA and NRC. Some of the accused persons were arrested and the names of the petitioners shown as accused only and as members of some organization. The investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet is already filed and the presence of the petitioners is not required for further investigation or interrogation and their presence is only required for the purpose of the trial. The incident took place in

¶68

¶69

December, 2019 now it is already mid of July, 2021. In view of the non appearance of the petitioners, the trial is held up. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing stringent conditions, if petitioners/accused persons are granted anticipatory bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶70

ORDER

¶71

The criminal petitions are allowed .

¶72

The respondent-police is directed to release petitioners/accused on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.240/2019 registered by Mangalore South Police, Mangaluru and in Crime No.132/2019 registered by Mangalore North Police, Mangaluru subject to the following conditions:-

¶73

¶74

i) The petitioners shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶75

ii) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶76

iii) They shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶77

iv) They shall not indulge in similar offences;

¶78

v) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation; and

¶79

vi) They shall follow all the guidelines issued by the State while doing business.

¶80

¶81

If any of the incomplete inquest recovered by the police, then they are at liberty to file additional charge sheet.

¶82

Sd/JUDGE

¶83

SSD

Mr Amanul Haseen v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Amanul Haseen v. 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

Gopa Ram @ Gopal Vs the State of Karnataka

Uday Vs State of Karnataka

Paul Ikechukwu Obba Vs State by Karnataka by

Frank Sunday Ibeabuchi Vs State of Karnataka

Yogesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Mohammed Fazil Vs State of Karnataka