Dismissed

Javid Kureshi @ Javeed v. the State by Town Police Station

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2022CRL.P/8989/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in connection with offences under the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter Act. Court rejected the petition finding that allegations of involvement were specific, the matter remains under investigation, and the petitioners have been absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Javid Kureshi @ Javeed Vs the State by Town Police Station — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8989/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JAVID KURESHI @ JAVEED S/O FAZLUR REHAMAN AGE 39 YEARS RESIDENT OF WARD NO.19 A.K. COLONY, SANTHE MARKET CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101

¶9

FARUQ S/O KHALID AGE 30 YEARS RESIDENT OF WARD NO.19 A.K. COLONY, SANTHE MARKET CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101

¶10

….PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. V.D. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE BY TOWN POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALURU REPRESENTED BY S.P.P HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP, R2-SERVED)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR

¶17

¶18

ARREST IN CR.NO.176/2022 OF CHICKAMAGALURU TOWN P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 4, 12 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF SLAUGHTER AND PREVENTION OF CATTLE ORDINANCE, 2020.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.176/2022 of Chickmagalur Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div) & CJM Court, Chickmagalur.

¶22

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶23

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that on 07.08.2022, Sub-Inspector of Town Police

¶24

¶25

Station submitted a complaint making allegation that on that day at about 8.00 a.m. when he was on patrolling duty with his staff, he received information about slaughtering of cattle and selling the same at Sitaram building road, near Aksa Masjid, Chikkamagaluru city. Then he along with his staff went to the said place at about 8.40 a.m. It is further alleged that seeing the complainant along with staff, the petitioners fled away and when they entered the house they found the beef hanged to the hook, there were 12 legs, 2 heads, 3 sickles, 3 knives, 1 steel hook, 2 sharping Ara, 2 white coloured fridges along with 1 electronic weighing machine. The said materials were seized by drawing mahazar. In this regard a complaint came to be lodged. The petitioners apprehending their arrest, approached the learned sessions judge and the learned sessions judge rejected their bail petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶26

¶27

During the course of arguments it is all along submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are no way involved and petitioner No.1 is not possessing any property in the Sitaram building road.

¶28

On the contrary, the documents produced by

¶29

the prosecution disclose that the property was owned by wife of the petitioner No.1 and in this regard a letter was placed by the prosecution for perusal of this Court. This document clearly disclose that submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No.1 did not possess any property holds no water as the property was standing in the name of his wife.

¶30

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that it is specific allegation that the petitioner was carrying slaughtering business. Further it is also evident that the petitioner was already involved in similar offences, and the matter is still at the

¶31

¶32

stage of investigation and petitioners are all along absconding. Their presence is required for interrogation and considering the submission that the petitioner No.1 does not possess any property, appears to be a false statement. It is evident that petitioners does not deserve any leniency at this stage when the matter is still at the stage of investigation. Hence, the anticipatory bail cannot be granted in favour of the present petitioners.

¶33

Looking to the conduct of the petitioners and not approaching the Court without clean hands, the petition is devoid of any merits and does not survive for consideration and hence, it needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition stands rejected .

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

NS CT:NR

Javid Kureshi @ Javeed v. the State by Town Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Javid Kureshi @ Javeed v. the State by Town Police Station

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. Kirankumar Y K Vs State of Karnataka

S. Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Ajjaiah @ Ajay Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Dilipa Vs State of Karnataka

Abhishek S @ Abhi Vs State of Karnataka