Allowed

Mohammad Musharaf v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2021CRL.P/3589/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition for anticipatory bail filed by two accused persons in a cheating and financial fraud case. The court granted bail on grounds of parity with other co-accused, imposing conditions including execution of bond, surrender, and non-tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of personal bond, surrender within 15 days, and specific conduct conditions.

Mohammad Musharaf Vs State of Karnataka — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3589/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMED MUSHARAF, S/O MOHAMMAD GOVASE, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT #7-71, JANATHA COLONY, BASRUR VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 211.

¶9

SARDAR NAVEED AKTHAR, S/O ABDUL KHADIR S, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT #1-159, J.M.ROAD, GANGOLLI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 216.

¶10

..PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.SHIVARAM B R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DIST, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,

¶14

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

..RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.31/2021 OF KUNDAPURA P.S. UDUPI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B,406,420 OF IPC AND SEC.21 AND 22 OF BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT AND SEC.9 OF THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING , THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.9

¶22

& 19 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting them anticipatory bail in Crime No.31/2021 registered by Kundapura police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 of IPC and Sections 21 and 22

¶23

of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act and

¶24

¶25

Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of interest Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004.

¶26

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Irshad Gulzar filed before the police on 15.3.2021 alleging that accused No.1 and others were running jewellery shop and they assured and induced the customers stating that if the gold ornaments of Rs.1,00,000/- is invested in the said scheme, on the basis of prevalent price of gold, they will get Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,500/- every month. Accordingly, the complainant and others have invested huge money in the accused jewellery shop but later the jewellery shop came be closed. Accordingly, complaint came to be lodged and it is revealed that the accused persons totally cheated more than Rs.92,00,000/- from

¶28

¶29

the investors. After registering the case, the police arrested some of the accused persons and they are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioner. Therefore, they approached the Session Judge for bail which came to be rejected and hence, they are before this court.

¶30

Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP and on perusal of the records, it shows that the petitioner is said to be working in the said jewellery shop. Petitioner No.1 is the showroom staff and petitioner No.2 is said to be sales man. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the coaccused persons accused Nos.11, 12, 23, 24, 3, 14, 7 and 8 were granted bail by the Session Judge in Crl.Misc.Petition Nos.566/2021, 568/2021, 569/2021, 572/2021 on 25.03.2021. These petitioners are having similar allegations against them and on par with the

¶31

¶32

other co-accused persons, they were also granted anticipatory bail. The main accused No.1 who is the kingpin is absconding. These petitioners are said to be the employees. The copy of the I.D. cards are produced and shown by the learned counsel. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and triable by Magistrate. The co-accused persons are granted bail by the Session Judge and this petitioner is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing certain conditions, if petitioners/accused Nos.9 & 19 are granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the

¶33

case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶36

The respondent-police is directed to release petitioners/accused Nos.9 & 19 on anticipatory bail in

¶37

¶38

the event of their arrest in Crime No.31/2021 registered by Kundapura police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 of IPC and Sections 21 and 22 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act and Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of interest Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004, subject to the following conditions:-

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

iii) They shall not indulge in similar offences;

¶42

iv) They shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

¶43

¶44

v) They shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

¶45

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

¶46

If any of the conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

cbc

Mohammad Musharaf v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Musharaf 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

Smt Chaithra Vs State of Karnataka

Numan Ul Hassan J Vs State of Karnataka

Seetha Reddy @ Seetharemareddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mani S Vs State of Karnataka

Althaf Khan @ Addu Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijayakumar @ Gonne Viji Vs State of Karnataka