Karnataka High Court
A Zubair S/O Late. B Ahmed, vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2011
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8Th DAY OF APRIL. 2011
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGAN NATHAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10508/2011
BETWEEN
Mr. A. Zubair, S/o. Late B. Ahmed
Aged about 40 years
Managing Partner
Falcon Impex Corporation
Having their branch office
At Opp. Port Office, Baithkol, Karwar
PETITIONER
(By Sri. Murthv Davanand Naik, Adv.)
AND
The State of Karnataka
By Karwar Town PS Police
Presently being investigated by
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Fraud Squad, C.I.D., Canton Bhavan
Palace Road, Bangalore 560 001
--
RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, HCGP)
THIS CRIMiNAL PETITiON IS FILED U/S 438 (1)
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST OF THE PETITIONER
IN CONNECTION WITH AND ARISING OUT OF KARWAR
TOWN PS CRIME NO.154/2010 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 379 AND 409 OF 1PC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner's Counsel Sri. Murthy Dayanand Naik and learned High Court Governm ent Pleader for respondent-State in respect of the anticipatory bail sought by the petitioner who is the Managing partner of M/s. Falcon Impex Corporati on company and he apprehends arrest following the requisition given by Karwar Town police and C.I.D to the Court that 13 stevedores and export companies are also involved in missing of the iron ore.
2. The complaint allegations in short are that, the complaint was lodged following the Port Officer, Karwar, who was in-charge of 50.000 MT of iron ore being foun d having only 14,500 MT of iron ore when the inspectio n was carried out by the Forest Officer and as the balance was found missing, the Forest Officer lodged a 3 complaint of theft of iron ore alleging commission of offences under Section 409 and 379 of the IPC.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri. Murthy Dayanand Naik submits that, in view of the report filed before the Court at Karwar mentioning the names of several companies including the petitioner's company said to have been involved, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail. Moreover this Court has granted anticipatory bail in like cases and in reference to the order passed in Criminal Petition No.7770/2010 and other petitions and also to the order passed by this Court in Criminal petition Nos.10469/ 2011 and 10470/2010.
4. Having thus heard the petitioner's Counsel and also the learned High Court Government Pleader, as this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the persons who are similarly placed and also taking note of the objections filed by the State, wherein it is stated that 4 the iron ore which is found missing was worth Rs.30,270 crores, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail mainly on parity grounds and moreover, the entire iron ore was entrusted to the Port Officer and thereafterwards, the iron ore was found missing when the Forest Officer visited the port.
2. Hence, the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing self bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:
1. He shall cooperate with the 1.0. during investigation of the case by appearing before him as and when required for the purpose of investigation.
2. He shall produce before the 1.0., the documents showing their permanent residential address.
k t 5
3. He shall also produce before the 1.0. the names and addresses of the person/s responsible for the day-to-day affairs of their company.
4. He shall also produce before the 1.0. such documents pertaining to their company as would be required by the 1.0 for the purpose of investigation.
5. He shall produce the names and permanent addresses of the Managing Director and other Directors of his company, so as to enable the 1.0. to interrogate them, if necessary, during investigation ofthe case.
6. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court, without prior permission of the Investigating Officer/Court concerned.
sdi-
gab