Karnataka High Court
Mr. Rameez Raja vs State By Ullala Police Station on 17 May, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4186 OF 2022
BETWEEN
MR. RAMEEZ RAJA
S/O. U. A. IBRAHIM,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1-115-9-1,
NAFEEZA MAHAL,
BEHIND MARRIAGE MAHAL KOTEKAR,
MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA-575 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY ULLALA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADAV, HCGP )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.44/2022 OF
ULLAL P.S., MANGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 7
OF ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT PENIDNG ON THE FILE OF
7TH JMFC COURT MANGALURU CITY D.K.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.44/2022 registered by the Ullal Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that in the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA.21.B.4284, Ashoka Leyland Lorry accused were transporting rice and 242 rice bags were seized from them. On verification of rice bag truck sheet, the name of M.R.Enterprises, Government Lower Primary School, Hoter No.589, NH 66, Honnavara Gunavante, Uttar Kannada and email ID is [email protected] is found and the same was transporting from Super Bazar Kotekaru village, Maduru 3 to Bannur Arafa Enterprises and apprehended the driver of the vehicle as well as the loader. Hence, the case has been registered. This petitioner has approached the Trial Court apprehending his arrest invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the same was rejected on the ground that this petitioner being the owner of the Super Bazar is not entitled for bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not the owner of the super bazar. In order to substantiate his contention, he has produced Trade Licence KMF No.31 (Rule 61(1)/ KMFC No.31 (Rule 61(1) issue by Kotekaru Pattan Panchayat which stands in the name of one 'Nafeeza'. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was working as Manager in the said Super Bazar and he is not the owner and there is an apprehension of arrest of the petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that, in the petition itself in paragraph No.4, it is admitted that this petitioner is the owner of Super bazar and now contends that he is not the owner. It is 4 further submitted that the documents which are produced before this Court cannot be accepted when there is an admission. It is also submitted that when there is no any material with regard to the apprehension of the arrest of the petitioner as the petitioner has not been arrayed as accused.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material, first of all, this petitioner has not been arrayed as accused. Apart from that, no notice has been issued against the petitioner. The only contention of the petitioner's counsel is that, police came to petitioner's house to arrest him. In paragraph No.22 petitioner has stated that police are regularly visiting the house of the petitioner in order to apprehend him and there is threat of apprehension. The offences alleged against the petitioner are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
7. On perusal of the document Trade licence, it is clear that the licence holder is one 'Nafeeza' and not this petitioner. Prosecution has also not denied the fact that police are visiting 5 the house of the accused. When such being the case, it is a fit case to exercise powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.44/2022 of Ullal Police Station, Mangaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.6
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the
investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*