Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 317 (KAR)

Subhan Shariff v. State of Karnataka

2022-03-05

V.SRISHANANDA

body2022
JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. M Partha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Mustakeem Alam, learned counsel for the complainant and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. 2. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: "WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of this arrest in Crime No. 07/2022 for offence punishable under 379, 420, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC of S.J. Park Police Station, Bangalore, which is pending before the learned VI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity." 3. The brief facts of the case are as under: Upon the complaint lodged by Dr. Ahmed Sharif siraj, S.J. park police registered a case in Cr. No. 7/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 468, 471 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short). 4. According to the complaint averments, petitioner herein has stolen away the books of the complainant-Trust by name Ayesha Amina Trust. 5. According to the police, from the date of offence, the petitioner has absconded and therefore, the investigation has crippled. 6. Attempt made by the petitioner to seek grant of anticipatory bail is turned down by the order dated 05.02.2022 in Crl. mis. No. 824/2022. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that police have falsely shown the present petitioner as absconding accused and petitioner is no way responsible for the alleged offences and is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and also ready to co-operate with the Investigating Agency and therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader and counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently opposes the grant of anticipatory bail. Sri. Mustakeem Alam, learned counsel for the complainant however also pointed out that another case has been filed by the Siddagunte Palya Police against the petitioner herein and in the said case also the petitioner is absconding and therefore, an attempt made by the petitioner to seek grant of anticipatory bail is turned down by this Court and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 9. Perused the record. According to the petitioner, he is no way responsible for the alleged theft of the books. 9. Perused the record. According to the petitioner, he is no way responsible for the alleged theft of the books. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot hold a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case. 10. Suffice to say that even according to the prosecution, for want of presence of the accused-petitioner, the investigation has crippled. While protecting the rights of the accused-petitioner, need of the prosecution for the custodial investigation has to be harmoniously balanced in the case on hand. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER 1. The Criminal petition is allowed. 2. Petitioner is directed to join the Investigation Agency on 17.03.2022 before the S.J. Park Police Station at 9.00 a.m. 3. The Investigation Officer shall take the petitioners to custody and complete the custodial investigation, if any, on the same day before 7.00 p.m. Thereafter, let the petitioner be on bail, on executing a personal 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. 4. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner. 5. Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer on every alternate Sunday between 10.00 am & 2.00 pm., till the final report is filed. 7. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore District without prior permission. 8. Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly. Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending IA does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Ordered accordingly.