Karnataka High Court
Sri. Mahamad Rabjal @ Rabivual vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2022
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1199 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI.MAHAMAD RABJAL @ RABIVUAL,
S/O SOLAMAN,
HINDU,
AGED 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.103, 1ST CROSS,
KYALASANAHALLI, KOTTANUR,
BANGALORE - 560 077.
ALSO AT
RAMIREDDY CIRCLE, VTU KUDLU POST,
BOMMANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MURTHY K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS HAL P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 009.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CR.NO.213/2021 OF H.A.L. P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 471 OF IPC ON THE FILE
OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU CITY IN
CRL.MISC.NO.25067/2022.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Murthy K, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C with the following prayer;
"Wherefore the petitioner above named most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court to be pleased to enlarge him on anticipatory bail and direct the respondent police, in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.213/2021 for the offences alleged under Section 419, 420 and 471 of IPC of HAL police and he may be enlarged on bail by imposing such terms and conditions 3 as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the case by setting aside the order passed by IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Mayo Hall Bangalore City in Cri.Misc.No.25067/2022 dated 31.01.2022 and allow this petition, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
A complaint came to be filed by the Police Inspector, Airport Traffic Police Station with H.A.L. Traffic Police, contending that the petitioner herein was the accused in respect of Crime No.27/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 304A IPC.
4. The complainant being the Investigating Officer of the said case, issued notice to the petitioner to furnish the documents pertaining to the offending vehicle including the driving licence of the petitioner herein. On 15.07.2021, the petitioner herein furnished the photocopy of the driving licence. On verification 4 with the software available with the police, it is found that the said licence was issued by Bahraich RTO, Uttar Pradesh State and the licence number shown that it was issued in favour of Sri.Shankar.
5. Since, the accused has produced the photocopy of the fake licence, a complaint came to be filed with the H.A.L. Police Station registered in Crime No.213/2021 on 15.09.2021 and the police are investigating the matter. In the meantime, the petitioner approached the District Court for grant of anticipatory bail which was turned down by order dated 31.01.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.25067/2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
6. This Court on 24.02.2022 gave time for the petitioner to furnish the original driving licence before this Court to appreciate the contentions of the parties. 5
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has instructed the petitioner to furnish the original driving licence, but, he has not co-operated with him.
8. The grounds urged in the petition is opposed by the learned High Court Government Pleader.
9. Admittedly, the entire case hinges on the production of the original driving licence. The photocopy of the driving licence came to be furnished by the petitioner herein in respect of the investigation in Crime No.213/2021 for investigating the driving licence of the petitioner herein. On verification of the photocopy that has been produced ie., DL No.UP4020150001961 in mParivahan app, it is revealed that the same came to be issued by Bahraich RTO, Uttar Pradesh State in the name of Sri.Shankar.
6
10. Admittedly, the petitioner is not Sri.Shankar. The petitioner's name is Sri.Mahamad Rabjal @ Rabivual and the driving licence which was issued in the name of Sri.Shankar came to be made in the name of the petitioner herein by producing the photocopy is a matter that has to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the custodial investigation of the petitioner is very much necessary.
11. Hence, no case is made out to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner by resorting to the Special powers vested with this Court under section 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, this Court pass the following;
ORDER The bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH