Dismissed

Sri. Ahmed Sharief v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024CRL.P/6196/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, dismissed an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by an accused person facing multiple charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery. The petition, which was the sought anticipatory bail, was initially considered based on the allegations against him, but eventually, the application was rejected or allowed after

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

Sri. Ahmed Sharief Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25824 CRL.P No. 6196 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6196 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. AHMED SHARIEF SON OF LATE IBRAHIM SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT: NO.139, 3^RD CROSS, TIPPUNAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶11

(BY SRI. MOHAMED ZULFIKHAR AHAMED, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE S.H.O GOVINDAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.PC. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT GOVINDAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.162/2024, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 37, 34, 120B, 149, 418, 420, 471 AND 36 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.

¶17

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25824 CRL.P No. 6196 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner-accused No.4 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.162/2024 of Govindapura Police Station, pending on the file of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru City registered for the offences punishable under Sections 37, 34, 120B, 149, 418, 420, 471 and 36 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Saad Salman.

¶21

Heard Sri. Mohamed Zulfikhar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶23

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25824 CRL.P No. 6196 of 2024

¶25

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

Petitioner being accused No.4 is seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. The informant lodged the first information making specific allegations against accused Nos.1 to 7. Accused No.6 is the Sub-Registrar, who registered the sale deed in the name of the informant.

¶28

The specific allegation against the present petitioner is that he impersonated the real owner of the immovable property and executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant by committing cheating, criminal breach of trust and by forging the signatures. The other accused have also played their role in getting the sale deed registered in the name of the informant by projecting the petitioner as the real owner and receiving total sum of Rs.49,50,000/-. Even though the sale deed is dated 07.02.2022, the informant stated that he came to know about the commission of offence recently when the name of the real owner was displayed in the property and

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25824 CRL.P No. 6196 of 2024

¶30

on enquiry, he came to know about the offence committed by the accused.

¶31

The nature of the allegations made against the present petitioner requires him for custodial interrogation as he is the person who impersonated the real owner and said to have executed the sale deed. Admittedly, the photo of the present petitioner is found on the registered sale deed with his signatures. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶32

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri. Ahmed Sharief v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ahmed Sharief v. 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

Malike Saba Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraja P M Vs State of Karnataka

Odesh Raj Urs Vs State of Karnataka

Sathisha B Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Syed Shahid Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Joseph Lawrence Mascarenhas Vs the State of Karnataka