Allowed

Sri. Rabban v. the State Police

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2022CRL.P/4338/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed criminal petitions filed by two sets of petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case involving alleged animal cruelty, unlawful assembly, and property damage. The Court exercised its powers with conditions, releasing the petitioners on bail subject to bond execution and other standard clauses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with two sureties and other standard conditions.

Sri. Rabban Vs the State Police — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4338/2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4341/2022

¶7

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4338/2022:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RABBAN, S/O NASARULLA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.74, MULSIM COLONY, SHAMPUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU NORTH, ARABIC COLLEGE, BENGALURU 560045.

¶10

SHARIFULLA, S/O ABDUL KHALEEL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.2046, DODDANNA NAGAR, MILATH NAGAR, K B SANDRA , BANGALORE 560032. ...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE POLICE, REP BY CPI, MANCHENAHALLI POLICE STATION, GOURIBIDANUR TALUK,

¶14

¶15

CHICKBALLAPUR DIST 562101. REP. BY SPP, HCK, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.94/2022 REGISTERED BY MANCHENALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 11(1)(A) AND 11(1)(D) OF PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 8 AND 9 OF PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER HOUSE) RULES, SECTIONS 4, 8 AND 11 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF SLAUGHTER AND PRESERVATION OF CATTLE ACT, SECTIONS 427, 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 429, 307, 323 AND 352 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GOWRIBIDANUR, AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4341/2022:

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

SHAKLEN AND SHAKLAIN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

¶22

SAMEER @ JAMEER, S/O HUSSAIN ALI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.

¶23

LAALA @ MOHAMMED RAZA, S/O JAILAB ALI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

¶24

RAZA ALI, S/O MAQBOUL ALI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶25

SHUMALE ABBAS, S/O JAKIR ALI, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

¶26

¶27

ALL ARE R/AT ALLIPURA VILLAGE, THONDEBAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TQ, CHIKKABALLAPUR 562101.

¶28

...PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI GIREESHA KODGI, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE POLICE, REP BY CPI, MANCHENALLI POLICE STATON, GOURIBIDANUR TQ, CHIKBALLAUR DIST 562101.

¶32

...RESPONDENT

¶33

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.94/2022 REGISTERED BY MANCHENALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 11(1)(A) AND 11(1)(D) OF PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, SECTIONS 4, 5, 6, 8 AND 9 OF PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (SLAUGHTER HOUSE) RULES, 2001, SECTIONS 4, 8 AND 11 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF SLAUGHTER AND PRESERVATION OF CATTLE ACT, SECTIONS 427, 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 429, 307, 323 AND 352 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GOWRIBIDANUR, AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶35

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

¶36

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

These two petitions are filed by accused Nos.10 and 13 and 1 to 5, respectively under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioners in Crime No.94/2022 of Manchenalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura, for the offence punishable under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(D) of Prevention Of Cruelty to Animals Act, Sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, Sections 4, 8 and 11 of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act and Sections 427, 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 429, 307, 323 and 352 of IPC.

¶39

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

¶40

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 16.04.2022, at around 6.30 p.m., the complainant lodged the complaint stating that the accused persons by forming unlawful an assembly, kept the cows in a cow shed and they were indulged in cutting and selling the cows. On information and complaint, along with social workers, raid was

¶41

¶42

conducted and found 15 cows in the compound, 5 cows in the backyard shed and 13 calfs and when they tried to rescue the same, the owners and muslim community wearing burqa prevented the rescue work and also pelted stone, as a result, one of the social worker sustained injuries and also caused damage to the scorpio vehicle and also police vehicle glass was broken and hence case has been registered against the petitioners herein and they were arrested on 19.04.2022.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the FIR only the names of accused Nos.1 to 3 has been mentioned and other details are given that other three persons. The learned counsel contend that other accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case and also in the mahazar, nothing is mentioned with regard to the details as mentioned in the complaint of cutting and selling the meat and no further custodial investigation is required and there are no any criminal antecedents against the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶44

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that in the

¶45

¶46

complaint, there is a reference with regard to they found blood, but not disputes the fact that in the mahazar, nothing is mentioned with regard to blood and only allegation is that all of them have cut the cattle in the compound and also in the backyard shed and also found calves.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶48

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, on information, the raid was conducted along with social workers and found the cattle. It is an allegation that they have dumped the cows for the purpose of slaughtering, but not found any sign of slaughtering and no doubt, the cows and calves are found at the spot and the same have been rescued. It is also an allegation that the petitioners formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of common object and prevented in rescuing the cows and calves and also allegation is that one of the social worker had sustained injury when the stone was pelted. Having taken note of these petitioners are in custody from 19.04.2022 and also taking note of the punishment provided for the offences which have been invoked, no need of further custodial investigation since already

¶49

¶50

cows and calves are rescued and hence it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with conditions.

¶51

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶52

following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

The petitions are allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.94/2022 of Manchenalli Police Station, Chikkaballapura, for the offence punishable under Sections 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(D) of Prevention Of Cruelty to Animals Act, Sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, Sections 4, 8 and 11 of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act and Sections 427, 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 429, 307, 323 and 352 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶55

(i) The petitioners shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶56

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

¶57

¶58

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶59

(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

Sri. Rabban v. the State Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Rabban v. the State Police

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

Mr Prashanth Pandey Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jayaramaiah B M Vs State of Karnataka

Shakthi @ Sakthimurthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagesh N P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mohammed Shabus @ Ali @ Shoboos Vs State of Karnataka

Sanjay Vs State by Kuvempunagar P S