Allowed

Safir Ahmed @ Safeer Ahammad v. State by Chamarajnagar Rural Ps

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024CRL.P/2241/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging rejection of a Section 457 CrPC application for release of a seized goods vehicle booked under the Karnataka Cattle Slaughter Act. The High Court quashed the orders rejecting release, holding that presuming future offences was contrary to law, and directed conditional release.

What did the court decide?

Orders rejecting release quashed; Ashok Leyland goods vehicle No.KA-20AB-0750 ordered released on adequate surety, indemnity bond of Rs.2 lakhs and proof of ownership within one week.

Safir Ahmed @ Safeer Ahammad Vs State by Chamarajnagar… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:22011 CRL.P No. 2241 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2241 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SAFIR AHMED @ SAFEER AHAMMAD S/O GHOUSE PEER AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OWNER AND DRIVER OF VEHICLE R/AT HALAGANAHALLI VILLAGE PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571107

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE BY CHAMARAJNAGAR RURAL PS REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001

¶15

(BY SRI. P. THEJESH, HCGP)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2024 AT ANNEXURE-D, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA IN CRL.RP.NO.1/2024 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.127/2023 REGISTERED BY CHAMARAJANAGAR RURAL P.S. U/S 279 OF IPC AND SEC. 4, 5, 7 AND 12 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF SLAUGHTER AND PRESERVATION OF CATTLE ACT, 2020 AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:22011 CRL.P No. 2241 of 2024

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar in Crl.R.P.No.1/2024 arising out of Crime No.127/2023, registered by Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station, for offences punishable under Section 279 of IPC and Sections 4, 5, 7 and 12 of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mohammed Tahir, appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP Sri.P.Thejesh, appearing for the respondent.

¶23

The petitioner gets embroiled in a crime, in Crime No.127/2023, for the afore-quoted offences. The offences were under the Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Act, 2020, wherein animals/cows were allegedly being ferried in a goods vehicle bearing No.KA-20AB-0750. Since the vehicle had been seized, the petitioner prefers an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C., before the Assistant Commissioner, which comes to be rejected. The rejection of which is called in

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:22011 CRL.P No. 2241 of 2024

¶26

question before the First Appellate Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This is also rejected. It is these orders, that has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶27

The learned counsel Sri.Mohammed Tahir appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the reason rendered for rejection by the First Appellate Court is on the face of it is erroneous. It is only on the score that the petitioner would indulge in similar type of acts, if the vehicle is released. It is further reasoned that one of the cows dies while transporting. He would submit that lorry met with an accident, due to that accident, the cow dies.

¶28

5. The learned HCGP would refute the submission and

¶29

contends that the vehicle should not be released.

¶30

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶31

contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:22011 CRL.P No. 2241 of 2024

¶33

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The vehicle being intercepted and crime being registered are all a matter of record. A perusal at the order passed by the First Appellate Court rejecting the application, reads as follows:

¶34

"REASONS

¶35

7. Point No.1: On perusal of the order Dtd::19.12.2023 by Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal Sub-division, it is clear that the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the prayer of this petitioner for release of this vehicle Ashok Leyland Goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20AB0750 on the ground that this petitioner was absconding. In addition to the same, one cow out of 11 died at the time of transportation and also on the ground that those animals were carried in a inhumane manner to Tamil Nadu.

¶36

8. On perusal of the order sheet produced before this court, it is clear that the petitioner has been granted bail in Cr.No.127/2023. However, the contents of the order shows that one cow has died on account of transportation of the cow in a inhumane manner out of 11 cows. Therefore, I feel that if the vehicle is released, it is likely that he may do similar type of acts and hence in order to avoid repetition of these types of activities, even though there is a prohibition for transporting the cows for slaughtering without license, I feel that it is necessary to reject the application. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative .

¶37

9. POINT NO.2: In view of answering the point No.1 in the Negative, I pass the following:

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22011 CRL.P No. 2241 of 2024

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.397 and 399 of Cr.P.C is REJECTED ."

¶41

In the considered view of the Court, the reason so rendered to reject the application is blatantly contrary to law. The Court cannot presume that the petitioner may indulge in similar type of acts, therefore, to avoid the commission of similar offences, the application is rejected. The adoption of such presumption by the concerned Court, cannot be sustained.

¶42

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶45

ii) The order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar in Crl.R.P.No.1/2024 and the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Assistant Commissioner Court at Kollegal in MAGCR No.78/2023-24, stand quashed.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:22011 CRL.P No. 2241 of 2024

¶48

iii) The respondent to release the Ashok Leyland Goods vehicle seized bearing No.KA-20AB-0750, on production of adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer along with the indemnity bond for a sum of Rs.2/- lakhs, furnishing proof of ownership.

¶49

iv) The petitioner shall not repeat the offence that he is now embroiled in.

¶50

v) The release of the subject vehicle shall be done, within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

¶51

Ordered accordingly.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

¶54

Safir Ahmed @ Safeer Ahammad v. State by Chamarajnagar Rural Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safir Ahmed @ Safeer Ahammad v. State by Chamarajnagar Rural Ps

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

Madhu Vs State of Karnataka

V M Gopalakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Gagan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Santhosh Gokavi Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Hema v Raju Vs State by Sadashivanagar P.S.

Ramanna Vs State, Station House Officer