Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Shardul vs The State Of Karnataka, on 8 August, 2016

Author: Aravind Kumar

Bench: Aravind Kumar

                            :1:


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100880/2016

BETWEEN:

1.   SHARDUL S/O MOULASAB MUNAVALLI,
     AGE: ABOUT 82 YEARS,
     OCC: RETD. PENSIONER AND ADVOCATE,
     R/O: MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.

2.   MOULASAB,
     S/O SHARDULSAB MUNAVALLI,
     AGE: ABOUT 52 YEARS,
     OCC: GOVT. SERVICE,
     R/O: MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.

3.   MOHAMMAD FAKRUDDIN
     S/O SHARDULSAB MUNAVALLI,
     AGE: ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     OCC: SCHOOL VAN DRIVER,
     R/O: MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.

4.   MUMTAZ BEGUM,
     W/O SHARDULSAB MUNAVALLI,
     AGE: ABOUT 62 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MALAPUR,
     DHARWAD-580008.

5.   SHAMSHAD BEGUM
     W/O MOULASAB MUNAVALLI,
     AGE: ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: MALAPUR,
     DHARWAD-580008.

6.   JAIBUNNISA
     W/O SAYED KAREEM,
     AGE: ABOUT 67 YEARS,
                             :2:


       OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KHADRI GALLI,
       MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.

7.     JAMALUDDIN
       S/O MEHABOOBSAB ALLABAKSH,
       AGE: ABOUT 52 YEARS,
       OCC: SUPERVISOR, R/O: RAPATI ONI,
       MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.

8.     SHARFUNNISA,
       W/O JAMALUDDIN ALLABAKSH,
       AGE: ABOUT 50 YEARS,
       OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: RAPATI ONI,
       MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.

9.     SAYED YUSUF
       S/O SAYED KAREEM JHSHANINAVAR,
       AGE: ABOUT 37 YEARS,
       OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KHADRI GALLI,
       MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.

10.    SAYED SADIQ,
       S/O SAYED KAREEM JHSHANINAVAR,
       AGE: ABOUT 35 YEARS,
       OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KHADRI GALLI,
       MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008.            ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SHARDULSAB M. MUNAVALLI ,
    PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR PETITIONERS 2 TO 10)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.                             ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL U/SEC.438
CR.P.C. ON THE GRANT AND REASON SETOUT AS ABOVE HAVE
WOUNDED BODY OF LIFE AND VIOLATION OF LIBERTY,
FREEDOM OF THE PETITIONERS WHO HAS SMALL CHILDREN'S,
IF ARRESTED PETITIONERS CHILDREN WILL BE ORPHANAGED,
                               :3:


FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.143, 147, 148, 504, 506
R/W 149 OF CR.P.C., PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
COURT AND JMFC, DHARWAD AND TO CALL FOR IN THIS
CONNECTION THE FILE BEARING CR. PETITION NO.3627/2016
FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AND AD-JUDGMENT IN THIS MATTER
OF ADJUDICATION AND AD-JUDGMENT AND THE LCR OF C.C.
NO.736/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC BE CALLED FOR NECESSARY APPRECIATION OF
FACTS AND LAW IN THIS CASE AND ALSO THIS HON'BLE
COURT CR. PETITION NO.3627/2016 FOR REFERENCE AS TO
ARRIVE AT TRUTH OR FALSE OF THE CASE INVOLVED AND
ALSO THE EVENTS OF ARREST PROBLEM UNDER THE SAID C.C.
NO. ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE ABOVE ON.

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

                            ORDER

Petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.736/2015 and is appearing in person and on behalf of petitioners 2 to 9 who have arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 9 in the same C.C. number as advocate.

2. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 IPC which are all bailable offences.

3. It is the grievance of the 1st petitioner that if an application is filed for grant of bail before the jurisdictional Court it would not be considered or entertained and as :4: such, petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for grant of bail.

4. In fact the provisions of Section 438 for grant of anticipatory bail would not be applicable in case of a bailable offence. For this proposition, judgment of the Apex Court in the case of R.K.KRISHNA KUMAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS (1998 (1) SCC 474) can be looked up. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that a direction if issued to the jurisdictional court to consider the application for bail on the same day in the event of same being filed by petitioners, it would suffice. It is made clear that in the event of such application being filed by petitioners, it shall be considered by the trial Court on same day and orders shall be passed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Jm/-