Allowed

Mr Syed Mozamel v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2022CRL.P/100/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for apprehended arrest in a case involving offences under 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, granting bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail subject to bond of Rs. 2,00,000 each with two sureties and conditions of cooperation and police attendance.

Mr Syed Mozamel Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR SYED MOZAMEL, S/O SYED FAIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶9

MRS. NAGINA, W/O SYED FAIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶10

MRS. SYEDA HAJIRA KAUNAIN, D/O SYED FAIYAZ, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.23, 2^ND CROSS, WILLIAM TOWN, BENSON TOWN POST, BENGALURU – 560046. ...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI A.S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EAST ZONE WOMEN’S POLICE STATION , BANGALORE – 560051. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560001. ...RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE OFFICERS OF WOMEN’S POLICE STATION, EAST ZONE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE ON ACCUSATION OF HAVING COMMITTED NON-BAILABLE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 SMT. ASMA BANU.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by the Officers of the Women’s Police Station, East Zone, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶21

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

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that based on the complaint of the wife of petitioner No.1, the police have issued

¶23

¶24

the notice against the petitioners vide notice dated 07.12.2021 after registering NCR No.798/2021.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in terms of the notice, the petitioners appeared before the police and there is apprehension of arrest based on the complaint and hence they may be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioners appeared before the police and they were advised and there is no any apprehension of arrest and the petition is not maintainable.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶28

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and on perusal of the document AnnexureB dated 07.12.2021, it is clear that NCR is registered in 798/2021. The learned High Court Government Pleader also does not dispute the fact that the petitioners appeared in pursuance of the notice and they were advised properly. When the notice has been issued and NCR has been registered, it is the

¶29

¶30

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is likelihood of apprehending the petitioners in view of the complaint. Having taken note of the issuance of notice and registering of NCR, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and in the event of any such registration of the case and arrest based on this complaint, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶31

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶32

following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest by the Officers of the Women’s Police Station, East Zone, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

(i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like-

¶36

¶37

sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶38

(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

(iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶40

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶41

(v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Mr Syed Mozamel v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Syed Mozamel 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

Kiran Babu S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mohana Vs State of Karnataka

H G Naveen Naika @ Bhandary Vs State by Sakarayapatna Police

Mohammed Ajaz @ Kerala Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraja T M Vs the State by Nandagudi Police Station

Mahesh K N @ Mahesh Nanjundaswami Kargal Vs State of Karnataka