Allowed

Syed Gaffur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024CRL.P/101794/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused sought anticipatory bail for offences under the Essential Commodities Act arising from seizure of PDS rice bags and a lorry at Ballari. The court found no material connecting the petitioner to the crime and granted anticipatory bail with a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail on personal bond Rs.1,00,000 with one surety, subject to conditions including appearing before police within 20 days and cooperating with inv

Syed Gaffur Vs the State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9232 CRL.P No. 101794 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101794 OF 2024 (438-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SYED GAFFUR S/O. SYED GHOUSE AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: WARD NO. 17, 1^ST CROSS, HANUMAN NAGAR, BALLARI – 583201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ANWAR BASHA B, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH BRUCEPETE P.S. BALLARI) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD-580001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN

¶15

(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)

¶16

KATTIMANI

¶17

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.10/2024 REGISTERED BY BRUCEPETE POLICE STATION, BALLARI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SECTIONS ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT 1955, U/SEC.7, 3, 6(A) PENDING BEFORE 1^ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, BALLARI.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9232 CRL.P No. 101794 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri. Anwar Basha B, learned counsel for the

¶23

petitioners and Sri. Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶24

Petitioner herein who is accused No.1 is seeking anticipatory bail in respect of Crime No.10/2024 registered by respondent Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 3, 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act 1955.

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that Sri Mallikarjuna Shanmukkappa working as Food Inspector, Kurugod Taluk office, presently in charge Food Inspector of Ballary, lodged a complaint stating that on 07.01.2024 at about 12.00 noon, he has received an information stating that the petitioner has stored PDS rice in Pullayya compound, Ballari street. After receiving the said information, he secured the panchas, P.I. and other staff, went to the place and conducted the search. During the said search, he found that a Mini Lorry was parked in the said area loaded with PDS rice bag. After seizing the said lorry, they noticed the rice which was in the said lorry belongs to PDS scheme. After seizing the said items and also apprehended the petitioner, the complainant learnt that it was purchased from various persons

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9232 CRL.P No. 101794 of 2024

¶27

who are the beneficiaries under the PDS scheme. There were total 170 rice bags weighting 73.10 quintals, valuing a sum of Rs.1,68,130/-. Based on the complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.10/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 3, 6(A) of Essential Commodities Act. The investigation is under progress.

¶28

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are no documents to show that the petitioner had purchased the rice from various persons and stored in the said compound. Even there are no documents to connect the petitioner to the crime. The petitioner has been implicated in a false case even though he has not committed any offence. There is no nexus between the seized items and the petitioner. However, he has been implicated falsely to show the statistics to the Government about the case. The petitioner is a businessman and permanent resident of Hanuman Nagar, Ballari and he is aged about 32 years and earning member of the family. He will abide the conditions imposed by this Court, in the event of his release on bail. Making such submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the petition.

¶29

Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that he stored the PDS rice and it

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9232 CRL.P No. 101794 of 2024

¶31

was loaded in the lorry. When it was about to transport in the Mini truck, the complainant and his staff conducted raid and seized rice bags. The petitioner is absconding and he is required for the purpose of custodial interrogation. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail and the said bail petition is deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on careful perusal of the averments of the complaint and case diary made available by the learned HCGP, it appears from the record that the complainant and his staff seized PDS rice along with the lorry. However, there is no material to connect the petitioner with the crime. Prima facie, I am of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the petitioner made out a case to grant bail. Without adverting to the merit of the case, it is appropriate to grant him bail by considering the punishment prescribed for the offences leveled against the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed.

¶35

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No. 10/2024 of respondent Police Station in the event of their arrest, on executing a personal bond for a sum of

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9232 CRL.P No. 101794 of 2024

¶37

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional police and also the Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶38

a) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional police station within 20 days from today.

¶39

b) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and when it is required.

¶40

c) The petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the proceedings of the Court.

¶41

d) The petitioners shall appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail.

¶42

In case, if the petitioners violate any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

VMB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Syed Gaffur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Gaffur 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

Kumar S/O. Jeevaleppa Rathod Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mahesh S/O Bheemappa Khandri Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mallappa Karabasappa Madlur Alias Malleshappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Govidappa S/O Kenchappa Tamragundi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Hanumanal Gavisiddappa Alias Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sami Vs the State of Karnataka