Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Akram @ Hafeez vs State By Balehonnur on 10 October, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6806/2017
Between:
1. Mohammed Akram
@ Hafeez Akram,
S/o Abdul Rehaman,
Aged about 18 years,
Student,
2. Raheem,
S/o Hyder Haji,
Aged about 47 years,
Agriculturist,
3. Ibrahim,
S/o Hyder Haji,
Aged about 40 years,
All are residing at
K. Thalagoora village,
Gabgal post, Mudigere Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District,
PIN- 581 208.
...Petitioners
(by Sri Leeladhar H.P, Advocate)
And:
State by Balehonnur
Police Station,
Chikkamagaluru District.
2
Rep. By. SPP,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri S. Vishwamurthy, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.92/2017 of
Balehonnur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District for
the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1-A), 21
of MMDR Act and Section of 379, 341, 353, 332, 225(B)
& 394 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest by the respondent-police in their Cr.No.92/2017, registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 4(1-A), 21 of MMDR Act and Section of 379, 341, 353, 332, 225(B) & 394 of IPC.
3. After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petition 3 in so far as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned may be dismissed as withdrawn since the petitioners intend to surrender before the concerned Court and move necessary bail applications.
4. The statement of the learned counsel for the petitioners is placed on record.
5. The allegation of the prosecution is, the villagers caught hold of the culprits who were illegally loading the Tractor with sand. However, two of them escaped. On receiving the information, the I.O went to the spot and vehicle was seized under mahazar, the petitioner was asked to drive the vehicle to the police station and PC.36 was sent with him in the vehicle and at about 6.30 p.m., when they were proceeding to the police station, three accused persons waylaid the Tractor and pushed PC.36 from the Tractor and took the custody of the vehicle and drove away the vehicle. However, they abandoned the vehicle in the Coffee plantation and disappeared.
4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no overt act is alleged against the petitioner and he is a student. Since, he was present in the spot, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and appear before I.O and co-operate for further investigation.
7. In the light of the above, the petition is partly allowed. Petitioner No.1 is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.92/2017 registered by the respondent-Police.
In the event of his arrest by the respondent-Police, he shall be released on bail on his executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
He shall appear before I.O., and co-operate for further investigation; he shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
5
Petition in so far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is concerned is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL