Allowed

Mohammed Rouf v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2022CRL.P/8161/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed by an accused (Accused No.3) in a case involving assault and possession of arms. The court granted bail based on the conclusion that investigation was complete, the accused was a rowdy-sheeter suffering from ailments, and on the basis of parity with another co-accused who had been granted similar relief. Bail was granted subje

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties for like sums.

Mohammed Rouf Vs the State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8161/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MOHAMMED ROUF S/O AHAMMED BYARI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT ROYAL GARDEN, GROUND FLOOR CHOKKABETTU SALAFI MASJID CHOKKABETTU, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT-575 008 ….PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. TALHA ISMAIL BENGRE, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SURATKAL POLICE STATION DAKSHINA KANNADA REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01 ...RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.11/2022 REGISTERED BY SURATHKAL POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 307, 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 & 25(1)(B)(b) OF ARMS ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-II COURT, MANGALURU.

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner/Accused No.3 has filed this petition

¶16

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.11/2022 of Suratkal Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and also under Sections 4 and 25(1)(B)(b) of Arms Act, pending before the Court of II JMFC, Mangaluru.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶18

and the learned HCGP for the respondent/State. Perused the records.

¶19

As per the case of prosecution, the Complainant-Mohammed Anas has set the law in motion by lodging a complaint. It is alleged that, on 01.02.2022 at about 11.30 p.m., after finishing his work, when he was going towards his house, on the way, he passed in front of the house one Abbubakkar

¶20

¶21

and where he noticed that the said Abbubakkar and one Haris were sitting in the sit-out of the house talking to each other, and he went near the house of Abbubakkar and started talking with them. Then, at about 1.45 p.m., one Charu, who is known to the complainant, along with others came in Brizza Car and suddenly picked-up quarrel with him and assaulted him by a Talwar on his shoulder. As a result, the complainant suffered injuries. It is also alleged that, when the complainant tried to escape, all other accused chased him and assaulted him, as a result he fell down and thereafter, they went away. In this regard, the complainant has lodged a complaint on 02.02.2022 before the concerned jurisdictional police station.

¶22

On the basis of the said complaint, the Investigating Officer has investigated the crime and submitted the charge sheet, wherein the present petitioner, who arraigned as Accused No.3, is shown to be absconding.

¶23

¶24

The petitioner/Accused No.3 has approached

¶25

the learned Sessions Judge seeking anticipatory bail with a petition and that petition came to be rejected and hence, he is before this Court,

¶26

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records it is evident that, there was enmity between Accused No.1 and the complainant. The allegations of the prosecution establish that, Accused No.1 accompanied with other accused, assaulted the complainant as well as chased him. It is also alleged that, the present petitioner has taken lead in assaulting and chasing the complainant. It is further asserted that the present complainant is also a rowdy-sheeter. It is further asserted that the petitioner/accused No.3 is suffering from number of ailments and in support of this contention, the medical documents are also produced. The other accused, who were arrested, are enlarged on bail. No doubt, the present petitioner is shown to be

¶27

¶28

absconding in the charge sheet and he has not cooperated during course of investigation. However, Accused No.5, whose name finds place in the FIR, was also shown to be absconding and he was granted anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition No.6205/2022 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶29

The records reveal that, the present

¶30

petitioner as well as Accused No.5- Arshad are sailing in the same boat, and as such, on the ground of parity, the present petitioner-Accused No.3 is also entitled for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that, the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has already been laid down and as such, the presence of present petitioner/Accused No.3 in the said crime, is no more required by the Investigating Agency.

¶31

Under these circumstances, in my considered

¶32

opinion, the petitioner/Accused No.3 can be granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions, which will

¶33

¶34

counter the apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused No.3 is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.11/2022 of Suratkal Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and also under Sections 4 and 25(1)(B)(b) of Arms Act, pending before the Court of II JMFC, Mangaluru, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with Two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer, subject to following conditions:-

¶37

i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the concerned court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender concerned Court shall release him on bail as directed.

¶38

ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses:

¶39

¶40

iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶41

iv) The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872;

¶42

v) If the petitioner violates any of the condition, the prosecution is at liberty to move the application for cancellation of bail;

¶43

vi) If the Investigating Officer collects any additional evidence, he is at liberty to submit additional charge sheet before the committal Court.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

KGR*

¶46

CT:NR

Mohammed Rouf v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Rouf v. the 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

Mr. Mohammad Ajinas .v.M. Vs the State by

Sourabh Mestri Vs State of Karnataka

M C Rasvishankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Arun Alias Delhi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Devappa Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Hemanth B Vs the State of Karnataka