Allowed

Kareem Peer v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Apr 2023CRL.P/718/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving cattle smuggling and cruelty to animals. He was directed to join investigation and undergo limited custody before being enlarged on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed anticipatory bail directed to appear before IO on 21.04.2023, undergo limited custody, and be enlarged on bail with deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and sureties.

Kareem Peer Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 718 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 718 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

KAREEM PEER, S/O GOUSE PEER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT: SA LAYA VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE POST, GANGOHALLI, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,

¶9

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 131.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. IMRAN PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KUDUR POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)

¶17

2 - CRL.P No. 718 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.445/2022 OF KUDUR P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 4,5,7,8,12 OF THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF SLAUGHTER AN PREVENTION OF CATTLE ACT, SEC.11(1)(a) OF PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT AND SEC.429 OF IPC AND SEC.192(a) OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 1ST ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Imran Pasha, Petitioner’s Counsel. An

¶22

affidavit is filed on behalf of petitioner.

¶23

Learned HCGP orally opposes the bail

¶24

petition. Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶25

"Wherefore, the petitioner humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of anticipatory bail by directing the respondent police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime

¶26

3 - CRL.P No. 718 of 2023

¶27

No.445/2022, of respondent Kudur police f or the alleged offences punishable under Section 4,5,7,8, 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Prevention of Cattle Act,2020, u/s 11(1) (a) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, u/s 429 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, u/s. 192(a) of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, pending on the file of learned 1st Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District, in the interest of justice . "

¶28

Brief facts of the case are as under: Upon the complaint lodged by Sri. Eranna C M, Kudur

¶29

police registered the case in crime No.445/2022 on 04.10.2022 for the following offences punishable under Section 4,5,7,8 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, under Section 11(1)(A) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, under Section 429 of IPC, 1860, under Section 192(A) of Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

¶30

Gist of the complaint averments reveals that on 04.10.2022 at about 3.45 a.m., near Halelaya and other places of Tippasandra Hobli, when the complainant was in patrolling duty, he spotted the vehicle bearing No. KA-01-

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 718 of 2023

¶33

MA-7700. On suspicion of the said vehicle, vehicle was intercepted. On inspecting the said vehicle, it is noticed that about 15-20 nos. of beef was found in the said vehicle. There is no pass of permit for transporting the same and therefore, the case came to be registered and the first owner of the vehicle apprehending of his arrest on the hands of police in respect of the said crime number. Therefore, he approached the District Court, Ramanagara in Crl.Misc.No.1308/2022 for grant of anticipatory bail which was rejected by order dated 16.11.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

The affidavit is filed by the present owner of the said vehicle in support of the grounds urged in the petition. The other documents are also furnished before

¶35

the Court. Pertaining to the ownership, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Learned HCGP opposes the bail grounds by contending that vehicle was seized with unauthorized beef while transporting and caught redhanded.

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 718 of 2023

¶39

Perused the material on record meticulously in

¶40

view of the rival contentions of the parties.

¶41

On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the vehicle bearing No.KA-01-MA-7700 is sold by Vijay Kumar in favour of present petitioner. The present petitioner contended that the vehicle was used for private purpose as it is a car and the driver has illegally transported for which the petitioner is not liable for the alleged offence and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶42

Whether at all, the driver alone exceeded his service conditions and transported the beef or on the instructions cannot be decided at this stage before this Court by holding a mini trial.

¶43

Admittedly, the petitioner is not available for the investigating agency and therefore, directed the petitioner to join the investigating officer and to undergo limited period of interrogation which would meet the ends of justice.

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 718 of 2023

¶46

11. Accordingly, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The petition is allowed .

¶49

ii. The petitioner is directed to appear before the investigating officer on 21.04.2023 at 10.00 a.m.

¶50

iii. Investigating officer is at liberty to take him to custody and conclude the custodial interrogation on the same day before 6.00 p.m. and thereafter, enlarge the petitioner on bail by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶51

iv. Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses or hamper the investigation process in any manner and shall co-operate with the investigation process.

¶52

v. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶53

vi. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed.

¶54

¶55

CRL.P No. 718 of 2023

¶56

vii. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Ramanagara District without prior permission;

¶57

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the

¶58

prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

SSD

Kareem Peer v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kareem Peer 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.Moidu Kunhi Vs the State of Karnataka

Motin Ulla Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Parashuram Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivasa Vs State by Srinivasapura Police Station

Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

Mahadeva N @ Chinnu Vs State by Vidyaranyapuram Police