Karnataka High Court
Ibrahim And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200982/2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200983/2017
AND
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200984/2017
Criminal Petition No.200982/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Ibrahim Khaleelulla Y.S.
S/o Syed Abdul Khadar Sab,
Age: 57 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o I.G. Bakery, Machhi Bazar,
Raichur-584 104.
2. Daulath Hussain S/o Bashu Miya,
Age: 42 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o Zaheerabad, Raichur-584 104.
3. Arief S/o Anwar,
Age: 36 Years, Occ: Business,
2
R/o Ashok Nagar, Raichur-584 104.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Chaitanya Kumar Chandriki, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Through West P.S. Raichur
Represented by SPP,
High Court Building,
Kalaburagi-585 102.
... Respondent
(By Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. praying to, release the petitioners on
bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.84/2017
of Raichur West P.S. which is registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 418, 384, 403,
406, 420 of IPC. Pending before II Addl. Civil Judge
(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court Raichur.
Criminal Petition No.200983/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Ibrahim Khaleelulla Y.S.
S/o Syed Abdul Khadar Sab,
Age: 57 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o I.G. Bakery, Machhi Bazar,
Raichur-584 104.
3
2. Daulath Hussain S/o Bashu Miya,
Age: 42 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o Zaheerabad, Raichur-584 104.
3. Arief S/o Anwar,
Age: 36 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o Ashok Nagar, Raichur-584 104.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Chaitanya Kumar Chandriki, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Through West P.S. Raichur
Represented by SPP,
High Court Building,
Kalaburagi-585 102.
... Respondent
(By Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. praying to, release the petitioners on
bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.86/2017
of Raichur West P.S. which is registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 418, 384, 403,
406 R/W 34 of IPC. Pending before II Addl. Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court Raichur.
4
Criminal Petition No.200984/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Ibrahim Khaleelulla Y.S.
S/o Syed Abdul Khadar Sab,
Age: 57 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o I.G. Bakery, Machhi Bazar,
Raichur-584 104.
2. Daulath Hussain S/o Bashu Miya,
Age: 42 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o Zaheerabad, Raichur-584 104.
3. Arief S/o Anwar,
Age: 36 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o Ashok Nagar, Raichur-584 104.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Chaitanya Kumar Chandriki, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
Through West P.S. Raichur
Represented by SPP,
High Court Building,
Kalaburagi-585 102.
... Respondent
(By Sri P.S.Patil, HCGP)
5
This criminal petition is filed under Section
438 of Cr.P.C. praying to, release the petitioners on
bail in the event of their arrest in crime No.87/2017
of Raichur West P.S. which is registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 418, 384, 403,
406, 420 R/W 34 of IPC. Pending before II Addl.
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Raichur.
These petitions coming on for orders this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
As the allegations against the petitioners are same but the complainants are different, hence they are taken up for common disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - Police.
3. These petitions are filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as the petitioners seek the relief of 6 bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.Nos.84/2017, 86/2017 and 87/2017 of Raichur West Police Station which are registered for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 403, 406, 418 and 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC.
4. The FIR came to be registered after matter was referred by learned JMFC to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences.
5. Complainants Mohammed Gouse, Mohammed Imran and S. Maheboob lodge the complaint stating that the landed area to the extent of 6 acres 11 guntas is in Sy.Nos.94/1 and 94/2 of Yaklaspur village is belonging to the accused No.1. A layout was in the said land as Adarsh Colony. 7
6. Accused No.1 sold the plot No.109 in favour of one Firoz Ahmed, which is situated at Adarsh colony. Said Firoz Ahmed sold it to one Jani bai, then she sold the said plot to complainant Mohammed Gouse for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accused also sold the Sy.No.101 to one Mohd. Ekbal Pasha. Said Mohd. Ekbal Pasha again sold it to one Shabana Parvin, then she sold the said plot to complainant Mohammed Imran and accused No.1 sold the land bearing Sy.No.100 to complainant S. Maheboob also.
7. This being the fact, with the intention to cheat the complainants, 3 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.94/2 was gifted by its owner-accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2.
8
8. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are said to be the attestors to the gift deed, even knowing the fact, they put their signatures to the gift deed and accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded 5 lakhs from the complainants and thereby cheated.
9. Both the learned counsels for the petitioners and High Court Government Pleader would submit that the purchasers are different in respect of each portion of the land. However, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the attestors for the sale deed that was said to have been executed by the accused No.1 in favour of the petitioner/accused No.2.
10. It is under these circumstances, accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded Rs.5,00,000 /- from the 9 complainants. At that time complainants filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., that came to be referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in crime Nos.84/2017, 86/2017 and 87/2017 respectively for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 403, 406, 418 & 420 R/w 34 of IPC.
11. With these being the facts, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the police have twisted the civil case into a criminal case, thus the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail.
12. Learned High Court Government Pleader would object that the petitioners herein stood on the aggravated foot and have no grounds even for seeking the relief for similar offence in crime 10 No.85/2017, whereas under the present petitions the crime Nos.84/2017, 86/2017 and 87/2017. Thus, the petitioner No.1 Ibrahim Khaleelulla, petitioner No.2 Daulath Hussain and petitioner No.3 Arief are the accused persons in four criminal cases i.e., Cr.Nos.84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017 and 87/2017, which are punishable under Sections 384, 403, 406, 418 and 420 R/w Section 34 of IPC out of them crime No.85/2017 has already been disposed.
13. It is necessary to mention that the petitioner No.1 in these petitions is the brother of accused No.1 Shakeel Ahmed Y.S. and the land in question was gifted by him to his brother Ibrahim Khaleelulla Y.S. Registering of the other four cases against the same petitioners were not brought to the notice of the Court and there was no impediment for 11 the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the Court about the registering of the cases against them. Thus, it was nothing but suppression of fact. Thus, gravity of the offence committed or allegation of commission is for two times or more than that an offence for which the petitioners are entitled for a relief for the first one may not be the same for the second offence. In the context and circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief of bail. Hence, the ORDER Petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in crime Nos.84/2017, 86/2017 and 87/2017 are rejected.
12
In the context and circumstances, issue notice to the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 regarding non- mentioning of the registering of the other cases calling for their explanation within 15 days.
Sd/-
JUDGE RSP