Allowed

Sri Salman Saleem Khan @ Salman Ahmed v. the Central Beurau of Investigation

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024CRL.P/484/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court allowed a petition to quash the proclamation and NBW issued by the trial court due to the petitioner's absence. The petitioner was directed to appear for bail and deposit a fixed bond amount, ensuring future presence at the trial to avoid prejudice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of protestation and NBW is set aside; petitioner directed to appear before trial court and file formal bail application subject to deposit of Rs. 50,000.

Sri Salman Saleem Khan @ Salman Ahmed Vs the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4743 CRL.P No. 484 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 484 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SALMAN SALEEM KHAN @ SALMAN AHMED S/O SRI. SALEEM KHAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.1405, 14^TH FLOOR, SMGK RESIDENCY, AGARWAL ESTATE HILL PARK, JOGESHWARI WEST, MUMBAI, MUMBAI SUBURBAN, MAHARASTRA STATE - 400 102.

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GIRIGOWDA C., ADVOCATE)

¶9

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

AND: THE CENTRAL BEURAU OF INVESTIGATION ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH NO.36 BELLARY ROAD, GANGA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶11

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT/CBI)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ISSUANCE OF PROCLAMATION DATED 21.01.2023 AND NON BAILABLE WARRANT DATED 20.09.2021, AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.6577/2017, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED XVII A.C.M.M (SPL.COURT FOR CBI CASES) BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 419, 420, 468, 471 OF IPC AND SEC.65, 66 OF I.T ACT AND SEC.143 OF RAILWAY ACT.

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:4743 CRL.P No. 484 of 2024

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Though this matter is listed in the orders list, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final hearing and heard finally.

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.8 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of proclamation dated 21.01.2023 issued under Section 82 of CRPC and non bailable warrant dated 20.09.2021 issued under Section 70 of Cr.P.C. in C.C No.6577/2017 by the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for CBI Cases) and seeking permission of this Court to approach the trial Court for the grant of bail and take trial.

¶19

Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-CBI.

¶20

The case of the petitioner is that the CBI filed charge sheet against the petitioner and others and the petitioner was shown as accused No.8 in the charge sheet. After filing of the

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4743 CRL.P No. 484 of 2024

¶22

charge sheet, the petitioner filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner remained absent. Therefore, NBW was issued and thereafter, notice was issued but the police were not able to be secure the petitioner. Hence, the trial court issued proclamation, which is challenged in this petition.

¶23

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is unwell having suffered from various diseases and he was unable to attend the Court due to communication gap. Now, he is said to be vacated the premises. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the respondent has seriously objected the petition contending that the petitioner he is willfully avoiding to present before the Court and delaying the process since for more than three years.

¶25

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for

¶26

the parties, perused the records.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:4743 CRL.P No. 484 of 2024

¶29

The order sheet passed by the trial Court reveals that the petitioner has continuously remained absent and hence, NBW was issued. Thereafter, surety notice also was issued where the surety was served and unrepresented. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly directed for split up of the case of the petitioner from the other accused. Further, the trial Court went on issuing the notice to the petitioner and finally, issued proclamation, which is in accordance with law. The attachment of the property was not issued under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. because the document produced by CBI was in Hindi language and it was sent for translation.

¶30

Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view that there is no flaw in the order passed by the trial Court in issuing the NBW and the order of proclamation to keep the petitioner-accused for facing trial.

¶31

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unwell and there is communication gap in attending the court. Therefore, by imposing certain conditions,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:4743 CRL.P No. 484 of 2024

¶34

if the order of the trial Court is set aside, it would not prejudice

¶35

to the case of the prosecution.

¶36

Therefore, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶37

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶38

(ii) The impugned order of the trial Court issuing the

¶39

proclamation and NBW is set aside.

¶40

(iii) The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on 27.02.2024 and file a formal application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to admit him for bail, subject to the condition that earlier bond amount of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited before the trial Court.

¶41

(iv) It is needless to say that the petitioner shall produce the copy of the Aadhaar card and any other identity card/documents and intimate permanent address to the respondent-CBI and the trial court.

¶42

(v) The petitioner shall not delay the process and shall

¶43

not remain absent before the trial court.

¶44

CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76 CT:SK

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Salman Saleem Khan @ Salman Ahmed v. the Central Beurau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Salman Saleem Khan @ Salman Ahmed v. the Central Beurau of Investigation

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. Madhu. S. J. Vs State of Karnataka

H.R. Nagesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraju M N., Vs the State by Holenarasipura Town P.S.

Mr. Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Nipun Bhandari Vs State of Karnataka

Manish Kumar Sethia Vs State of Karnataka