Allowed

Nawaz Ulla Khan @ Asif v. State O F Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2021CRL.P/8109/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The court held that no bar existed under Section 104D of the Karnataka Forest Act given the petitioner's absence at the time of seizure. Bail was granted subject to stringent conditions including personal bond, no tampering with witnesses, and voluntary surrender within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to executing personal bond, non-interference with witnesses, no further alleged offences, voluntary surrender within 15 days, and availability for investig

Nawaz Ulla Khan @ Asif Vs State O F Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8109/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAWAZ ULLA KHAN @ ASIF, S/O AFEEZ ULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O MUSLIM BLOCK, BEHIND MEKKA MAZID, MANDYA ROAD, NAGAMANGALA TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT.ARCHANA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH NAGAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 09. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.KRISHNAKUMAR K.K., HCGP)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN

¶12

¶13

CR.NO.103/2021 OF NAGAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 OF IPC AND SECTION 86 AND 87 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963.

¶14

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

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.103/2021 registered by Nagamangala Town Police, Mandya for the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.

¶17

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

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that one Sudhakar K.N., Police Officer has registered a suo-motu

¶19

¶20

complaint on 04.09.2021 alleging that after receiving credible information about illegal possession of sandalwood billets, the complainant-police and his staff visited the house of the petitioner where they found some of the sandalwood pieces and seized 14 Kgs. 60 grams of sandalwood billets. When on enquiring with the woman, who was present in the house, she disclosed that her husband i.e. the petitioner has brought the said sandalwood pieces, but he was not present in the house. Accordingly, the police have registered the case against the petitioner. After registering the case, the police are making hectic efforts to arrest this petitioner. The petitioner approached the Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected on 23.09.2021. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioner and the learned High Court Government

¶23

¶24

Pleader for the respondent-State and on perusal of the records, it reveals that, of course, the police have seized the sandalwood billets in the house of the petitioner and his presence was not found in the house but his wife Shamaparveen was in the house and she has taken the name of the petitioner. Based upon the statement of the wife of the petitioner, a case has been registered against the petitioner. At this stage, it cannot be considered that petitioner is guilty of the alleged offence as he was not seen in possession of the sandalwood billets when it was seized by the police. Such being the case, I do not find any bar under Section 104D of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and by imposing stringent conditions, if petitioner/accused No.1 is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The criminal petition is allowed .

¶28

The respondent-police is directed to release petitioner/accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.103/2021 registered by Nagamangala Town Police, Mandya for the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

i) The petitioner 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;

¶30

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

¶31

iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences;

¶32

¶33

iv) The Petitioner shall voluntarily surrender before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;

¶34

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

¶35

vi) The Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer once in a week and mark his attendance on every Monday between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m for a period of three months, or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

KTY

Nawaz Ulla Khan @ Asif v. State O F Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawaz Ulla Khan @ Asif v. State O F Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State by Vs Syed Niyaz

Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Abuali Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar @ Vijayanand R Vs State by

Sri Ravi Kanth Jetty Vs State of Karnataka

Vinod. D Vs State of Karnataka