Allowed

Alfan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2021CRL.P/3173/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons facing charges of kidnapping, extortion, and criminal intimidation under the IPC. The Court imposed stringent conditions regarding appearance, bonds, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to conditions: appearance before IO, execution of bond with sureties, cooperation in investigation, and no threatening witnesses.

Alfan Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3173 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ALFAN,

¶8

SON OF HASSAN KOYA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUTHUVATTUSSERY HOUSE, ELETTIL POST, KODUVALLY,

¶9

KOZHIKODE – 673 572.

¶10

NOUFAL, SON OF KUTTYMON HAJI, AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT KANARANKANDY HOSUE, ELIKKAD KAITHAPPOYIL, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE – 673 573.

¶11

HASSAN, SON OF KOYA, AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT MUTHUVATTUSSERY HOUSE, ELETTIL POST, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE – 673 572.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECTUOR.

¶17

SOLADEVANAHALI POLICE STATION, CHIKKABETTAHALLI , VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 097.

¶18

SRIRANGAPATANA POLICE STATION, MANDYA – 571 438. (REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR STATE)

¶21

¶22

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.48/2020 OF SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 341, 363, 368, 364A, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.48/2020 of Soladevanahalli Police Station for

¶26

¶27

the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 363, 368, 364A, 384, 506 and 149 of IPC (earlier registered as Crime No.253/2019 of Srirangapatna Police Station) pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶28

The facts leading to this petition are that on the complaint filed by one Muhammad Basheer M, the Police have registered a case. The allegations are that the complainant was abducted by accused Nos.1 and 2. The abductors had severely manhandled and assaulted him. They have also taken valuable documents and extorted a cash of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Only).

¶29

After registering the case, the Police Officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners had approached the Sessions Court, but the bail petition has been rejected.

¶30

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless. The complainant had borrowed a loan of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) from the petitioners in order to establish his business but he had failed to repay the said amount. When the petitioners insisted for repayment of the said loan, a false complaint has been registered against them. The entire dispute was in connection with the financial transaction and it was of civil in nature. Thus, the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of Section 364A of IPC insofar as accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned. Even though the Police have registered a criminal case on 01.12.2019, so far, no investigation has been conducted by them but they are making attempts to arrest the petitioners. In the event of arrest and detention, the petitioners would be put to great hardship and injustice.

¶33

¶34

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are specific allegations that these petitioners in order to extort the money from the complainant, have kidnapped him. There are no grounds to hold that they are falsely implicated in this case.

¶35

Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the records available at this stage.

¶36

Admittedly, the complaint averments disclose that on 21.10.2019 and on 17.11.2019, the petitioners had abducted him from Banawadi Railway Station and they took him to Srirangapatna. On 21.11.2019, the petitioners took him to Bengaluru and stayed in a lodge but the complainant escaped from their custody on 22.11.2019.. Thereafter, he had approached the Sanjay Nagar Police Station but no case was registered. Later, he has filed a complaint on 01.12.2019. Thus,

¶37

¶38

it is evident that there is a delay in filing the complaint against

¶39

the petitioners but there is no proper explanation. The averments made in the complaint discloses that there was a financial transaction between the complainant and the petitioners. At this stage, it is needless to make an elaborate discussion about these records. The offences are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.

¶40

The grounds made out in the bail application and submission of the counsel for the petitioners goes to prove the apprehension of the petitioners regarding their arrest and detention. The main objection is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioners are likely to cause threat to the complainant

¶41

¶42

and interfere with the investigation. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

¶43

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail, subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Criminal petition is allowed.

¶46

Consequently, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.48/2020 of Soladevanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 363, 368, 364A, 384, 506 and 149 of IPC (earlier registered as Crime No.253/2019 at Srirangapatna Police Station) pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, subject to following conditions:

¶47

i. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of

¶48

¶49

receipt of certified copy of this order. On appearance of petitioners, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate and release them on bail;

¶50

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

¶51

iii. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶52

iv. The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation;

¶53

v. The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses; and

¶54

vi. The petitioners shall mark their attendance in respondent- Soladevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru on 30^th of every calendar month until submission of the final report.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Alfan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alfan 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

K S Geetha Vs Sathisha

Abdul Samad S/O Abdul Razak Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohd. Ahmed @ Mustaq Ahmed and Ors. Vs the State

C Shankar Reddy Vs Mrs Bhavana Chopra

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Rathna

Nagu S/O Babu Pandre Vs the State of Karnataka