Karnataka High Court
Saifali Ayubahusen Madewale ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 April, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100544/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SAIFALI AYUBAHUSEN MADIWALE
AGE: 23 YRS, OCC:DRIVER
R/O:HOUSE NO. 27, PATIL GALLI
PIRANWADI BELAGAVI
DIST:BELAGAVI
2. JIBRAN SALAVUDDIN BEPARI
AGE:23 YRS, OCC:BUTCHER
R/O:KASAYI GALLI
CAMP BELAGAVI
DIST:BELAGAVI
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHARAD U.MAGADUM, ADV. FOR
SRI HEMANT R CHANDANGOUDAR)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KAKATI POLICE STATION BELAGAVI
REPTD. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS
ON REGULAR BAIL IN C.C.NO. 73 OF 2016 ON THE FILE
OF JMFC IV COURT BELAGAVI IN CRIME NO.0344 OF 2015
OF KAKATI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 143, 489B, 489C READ WITH SECTION 149 OF
IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 489B, 489C, 143 read with Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.344/2015.
2. It is alleged in the complaint that on 06.11.2015 at about 3.00p.m. the complainant i.e., the Police Sub-Inspector (L & O) Kakati Police Station, Belagavi, received the information that some persons parked the car and motorcycle on the western side of :3: NH-4 at Bhootaramanahatti Village and making preparations to circulate counterfeit currency notes. The complainant along with staff and also with panchas proceeded and parked the jeep in an inconspicuous place at 4.15p.m. and observed one car bearing No.KA- 34/MD-5004, and motorcycle bearing No.KA-22/EE- 9100. It is further alleged that the accused were removing one black colour bag and handing over the same, was of currency to the person standing outside. Immediately they asked the names of the persons standing there and on such question the accused persons narrated their names to the complainant. It is alleged that on enquiry it is found that there were four bundles of Rs.500/- currency notes. Immediately, they searched accused No.4/petitioner No.2 herein and found Rs.500/- currency notes, one bundle of 100 notes. Accused Nos.1 and 2, on enquiry, narrated that they have brought these notes from one Noor Alam of New Faracca of West Bengal and also stated that :4: accused Nos.1 and 2 have brought 778 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination worth Rs.3,64,000/- and it is alleged that 228 notes have been handed over to the other accused at Belagavi. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 4 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent- State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, it is accused Nos.1 and 2, who brought the currency notes even according to the prosecution. Sofar as petitioners herein are concerned, there is no prima-facie material to show their involvement in committing the alleged offence. He has also submitted that the other accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court. Hence, submitted that by :5: imposing any conditions petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that the allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners herein and accused Nos.1 and 2, are same. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court and this Court by passing the considered order rejected the bail petitions. Hence, submitted that petitioners herein are also not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the charge sheet material produced along with the petition.
7. I have also perused the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by this Court in Crl.P.100703/2016, wherein this Court after considering the merits of the case, rejected the petition filed by accused No.1. I have also perused the order dated 03.08.2016 passed by this :6: Court in Crl.P.100678/2016, which is in respect of accused No.2. Looking to the said order also, after detailed discussion, this Court held that there is prima- facie material against accused No.2 and rejected the said petition.
8. Looking to the materials placed on record and considering the submissions made by both sides at the bar, I am of the opinion that the allegations in the complaint are one and the same as against the petitioners herein and accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR