Dismissed

Mr. Mohammed Harshad v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021CRL.P/797/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Misc. Petition filed for regular bail by accused individuals alleged to have been part of a group shouting 'Pakistan Jindabad' slogans during election result declaration. The High Court of Karnataka held that the act of shouting such slogans attracts the relevant IPC offences and denied bail at a stage where investigation was ongoing and some accused remained at large.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition was rejected; the criminal petition was dismissed.

Mr. Mohammed Harshad Vs the State of Karnataka by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.797 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR. MOHAMMED HARSHAD S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: WORKING IN A PRIVATE SHOP, RESIDING AT SUNNATH KERE HOUSE, KUVETTU VILLAGE, GURUVAYANAKERE, BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 224.

¶9

MR. DAVOOD G.M. S/O. HASSAINAR G.M., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: WORKING IN A PRIVATE SHOP, RESIDING AT KONIUPALLE HOUSE, KUVETTU VILLAGE, GURUVAYANAKERE, BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 224.

¶10

MR. ISAK S/O. PODIMONU @ PODIYA BEARY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, RESIDING AT NO.1-93 (40), PILICHANDIKALLI MANE, KUVETTU VILLAGE, GURUVAYANAKERE, BELTHANGADY TALUK - 574 224.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI DINESHKUMAR RAO K., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION – 574 214. (REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU – 560 001.)

¶16

... RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.99/2020 REGISTERED BY BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION, D.K., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 124(A) READ WITH 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 for granting regular bail in crime No.99/2020 of Belthangady Police Station, D.K. for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 124(A) read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶22

It is alleged by the complainant-Mohan Belthangady on 30.12.2020 that on 27.12.2020 the elections of Thekkaru, Charmadi, Kwettu Grama Panchayaths in Belthangady Taluk were held. On

¶23

¶24

30.12.2020, at about 2.45 p.m., at S.D.M. Pre-University College at Ujjire, the results of returned candidates were declared after counting process was completed. By that time, about 30-40 members of S.D.P.I assembled together by holding S.D.P.I. flags and shouted slogans as Pakistan Jindabad and disturbed the public peace in the locality affecting the feelings of the people. After registering the case, the police arrested the petitioners on 30.12.2020 and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners have moved a bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge at D.K.Mangaluru which came to be dismissed. Hence, petitioners are before this Court.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. There is no specific overt act or allegations against the petitioners. Some other interested persons who were inimically disposed towards the petitioners have taken advantage of the alleged incident. There is no prima facie case against the petitioners for the alleged offences .

¶26

¶27

Almost the investigation is completed. There is no slogan raised against Government of India. It is only during the election processions, some of the followers shouted the slogans as Pakistan Jindabad. Hence, prayed to allow petition.

¶28

Learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition and contended that there is prima facie material in favour of the petitioners which amounts against the Government of India. Investigation is pending. Hence prayed for rejecting the bail petition. He further submits that some other accused persons are yet to be arrested.

¶29

Upon hearing the arguments, on perusal of the records and considering the material on record, it goes to show that after declaration of results of village panchayat elections on 30.12.2020 and on behalf of the village candidates, some group of people from S.D.P.I holding S.D.P.I. flags and shouted slogans Pakistan Jindabad and disturbed the public peace in the locality affecting the

¶30

¶31

feelings of the people. Of course, there is no specific overt act attributed against any of the petitioners, but it is from the group of people from the members of S.D.P.I and shouted the slogans in favour of Pakistan as Pakistan Jindabad, but it cannot be said that the slogans are not against the Government of India and affected the feelings of Indian people. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners have not shouted the slogans in favour of Pakistan as Pakistan Jindabad which is against the Government of India. Being Indian citizens shouting slogans as Pakistan Jindabad by praising the enemy country is certainly attract the offence alleged. Investigation is still pending and some of the accused persons are yet to be arrested by the Police. Hence, at this stage, it is not a fit case for granting bail to the petitioners. I do not find any good ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed .

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

GBB

Mr. Mohammed Harshad v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohammed Harshad v. the State of Karnataka by

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. Ajay Gupta S/O Ram Avad Gupta Vs Sri. Banakar Manjunath S/O Bheemeppa

Sri. Ajay Gupta S/O Ram Avad Gupta Vs Sri. Banakar Manjunath S/O Bheemeppa

The State of Karnataka, Vs Basavaraj Nagappa Bawalatti

Vinod Kumar @ Vinod @ Tollu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Chandrika K P Vs State by Mandya West Police

Sri Naveen M Vs State of Karnataka