Karnataka High Court
Shri Nawazkhan S/O Mehaboobkhann ... vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRL.P.NO.100605 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. SHRI NAWAZKHAN, S/O MEHABOOBKHANN PATHAN,
PARTNER OF SEVEN STAR COLD STORAGE,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: CTS NO.4725, KAKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI.AFROZKHAN, S/O MEHABOOBKHAN PATHAN,
PARTNER OF SEVEN STAR COLD STORAGE,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: CTS NO.4725, KAKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI.
3. SHRI.IMRANKHAN, S/O MEHABOOBKHAN PATHAN,
PARTNER OF SEVEN STAR COLD STORAGE,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: CTS NO.4725, KAKAR GALLI, BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SANTOSH.B.RAWOOT, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THORUGH PSI MAL MARUTI POLICE STATION,
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHAWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ANAND K.NAVALAGIMATH,HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND THE PETITIONERS
BE ENLARGED ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CONNECTION WITH MAL MARUTI P.S.CRIME NO.45/2018 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 429, OF IPC AND
SECTION 11, 9, 8 AND 4 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF COW
2
SLAUGHTER AND CATTLE SLAUGHTER AND CATTLE PRESERVATION
ACT 1964 AND SECTION 11(1)(d) OF PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
ANIMALS ACT, 1960.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.45/2018 registered by the respondent-police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 429 of IPC and Sections 11, 9, 8 and 4 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 and Section 11(1)(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.
2. The FIR has been registered based on the complaint lodged by one Joishine Antony, Honorary Animal Welfare Officer from Animal Welfare Board of India. In the complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners are running Seven star Cold storage in Kakar Galli, Belagavi. This Seven Star cold storage unit has been procuring beef from illegal slaughter houses in and around Belagavi and process them in its unit, pack them and sends it for export. This cold storage is functioning without any FSSAI License. The meat stored in this cold storage is not fit for 3 consumption as it is not procured from reliable/legal slaughter houses. It is also alleged that the petitioners are cheating the public and the Government by sending contaminated, unhygienic meat to foreign countries through different companies in Maharastra and other states.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent-State.
4. Learned HCGP has not submitted any written statement of objections, but has orally opposed the grant of bail.
5. Even though, the FIR is registered under Section 420 of IPC, I do not find any allegations in the complaint attracting the said offences. Even the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the offence under Section 420 of IPC. However, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application solely on the ground that the offences alleged against the petitioners are heinous and serious in nature. But on going through the complaint, it is seen that the accusations against the petitioners 4 are that they have been procuring beef from illegal slaughter houses in and around Belagavi and have been transporting the same outside the State. Even though it is alleged that the petitioners do not possess any licence to run the factories, the petitioners have enclosed the subsisting license issued by the competent authorities permitting them to operate the factory.
6. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners have violated any of the conditions of the licence. On the other hand, the material allegations are that petitioners have been procuring beef from other slaughter houses which means that slaughter houses are permitted to operate in and around Belagavi. It is not the case of the complainant that the meat supplied by these slaughter houses is contaminated. If for any reason, the storage factory run by the petitioners are found unfit to maintain hygienic condition, the provisions of the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 is required to be implemented by the concerned authorities. There is nothing on record to indicate that any action has been taken against the petitioners under the provisions of the said Act. That apart, the offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with 5 imprisonment up to six months. The offence under Section 429 of IPC, though is punishable with imprisonment for five years, yet the same is bailable. The allegations made in the compliant do not attract the ingredients of the said offence. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners are involved in committing the mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow or ox etc. so as to invoke the said provision.
7. For all the above reasons and having regard to the allegations made against the petitioners and the nature of the evidence that is required to be collected by the Investigating Agency in proof of the above offences, in my view custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. By enlarging the petitioners on bail, no prejudice would be caused to the investigation or eventual trial. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition No.100605/2018 is allowed. Petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from the date of this order. 6
On their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate them and shall enlarge them on bail on the same day on obtaining a bond from each of them in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject to further conditions that:
(i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer and the Court as and when required.
(ii) Petitioners shall not threaten or lure the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) Petitioners shall co-operate with the
investigation and produce all necessary
documents as called for by the Investigating Agency.
(iv) Petitioners shall mark their attendance on the last day of every calendar month in the respondent Police Station until the submission of the charge sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE Hmb