Mr R Syed Khader vs The State By Pulakeshinagar P S on 17 September, 2019

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr R Syed Khader vs The State By Pulakeshinagar P S on 17 September, 2019

Bench: K. N. Phaneendra

                         1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE     17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

                     BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

              CRL.P. NO.6011/2019

BETWEEN

MR. R. SYED KHADER
S/O LATE SYED ABDUL RASHEED
AGED 57 YEARS,
R/O # 191, III MAIN
IV BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010                 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SATISH. M. DODDAMANI., ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE BY
PULAKESHINAGAR P S
BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001               ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CR.NO.130/2019     OF    PULAKESHINAGAR     P.S.,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 304, 337,
338, 427 R/W 34 OF IPC.
                                   2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON                          FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT       MADE                          THE
FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (A3) and the learned HCGP for the Respondent -State. Perused the records.

2. The petitioner (A3) has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.130/2019 registered against him by Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 337, 338, 427 r/w. 34 of IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 09.07.2019, when the respondent-police are on patrolling duty, they received an information that, a building under construction situated No.39, 2nd Cross, Huchins Road, Frazer Town, Bengaluru City had collapsed. Therefore, the Police Inspector of the said jurisdictional Police Station along with his staff went to the spot and found that five storeyed building was 3 collapsed and some persons were died under the collapsed building.

4. The record discloses that, though the petitioner's name does not find place in the FIR, but during the course of investigation, the police found that the petitioner (A3) is the structural engineer and he is also responsible for the construction of the said collapsed building.

5. Though the learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner's role in the construction of building is only to prepare the plan and submit the same, but, at this stage, no material is available to substantiate the said contention. The investigation is at the threshold and in fact, the police have to collect the relevant materials to ascertain as to what exactly the role of this petitioner (A3) in the alleged incident.

6. In the above said facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner (A3) may hinder the investigation and the custodial investigation is necessary to collect the 4 material from the petitioner (A3) with reference to his role in the alleged construction of the said collapsed building.

7. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner (A3) is not warranted Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner (A3) is at liberty to move the concerned trial Court for Regular Bail, with an application. The concerned trial Court is also directed that, if any such application is filed by the petitioner (A3), the same shall be considered in accordance with law and disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

JUDGE KGR*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court