Syed Akthar S/O Syed Gouze vs The State Through on 8 December, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Syed Akthar S/O Syed Gouze vs The State Through on 8 December, 2010

Bench: Ravi Malimath

-1,

IN THE HIGH,COURT-----§f€--K"£§RNATAKv£§ 
CIRCUIT ;3.g"rf;cH--'_ mg" .§"u_;51_ARGA

ON THE 8?" 10

TH  r{uq[§§5ﬁ';'s{.%3:{%E§'1/'§ EWTH
BETWEEN:     4   
 ar-VS/'e Syed _G--ou;:'e--,_ _
Age: 37' 3zéTa'rs;i:,Occ'§%: "C0't'p;o-rate',""'
TMC Ba'sav.al<a¥'y*'é:-m._,_»7  ' 3
R/0 BasévakaIyan;=[§3.E$Ttv:«_._B*id'a--r.

 ~   ..  ...Pe-titioner

;{B»'g_ S|4?Vi.AvV_iﬁEish V' Aiuploankar & Sr§.S.G;Bannur,

 v    ..... 14

3. 'V  :3  _ ' 
TFTé*"State'~:r:«rQ'ugh
'B;as:.avaE<a§--yanTgiwn Poiice Station;

Dist:"--BEda'r§'."L:--- 
'2 v~~_) , Respondent

AA TL (§By.. SrE.Subhash Maliapur, HCGP) 'fhis Criminai Petition fiéed under Section 438 of Cdde of Criminal Procedure, 1§73 praying ta eniarge the petitioner an baii in the event of his arrest in Crime $6.149/2616 sf Basavakaéyan Tswn Pefice Statisn, 33¢"

show the condition of sanitation; The case of.-'-the cornpiainant is that the petitioner abused him Eanguage touching upon his caste. Hence ' circumstances, the petitioner epVorAeh'en.d'i--4ng-:'t.hat_heT"isn".

iékeiy to be arrested, the present petiti'o.n has..i3e'e'n"fiied';vit'V

3. Sri.Subhash_, ..MaiIaip--ttr;':-. the ie'a"rneAd fiounsei appearing for the that there is a prima facie'cae:e.._ag§i'inst' hence, he is not the petitioner has before the Sessions Court. of the Scheduled Castes and the Sch'ed'u!edv«_Tr--§_hee:(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, net:anticipVato':'y"baii can be granted. He contends i.th'a&t"th:e_'rg;h ~is"'_:,*3ar for this Court to grant anticipatory 3:

bar M Heard Counseis.

5. There is no bar as provided under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the accused to first approach the Sessions .

for baii. The jurisdiction of the Sess.i.o_r_is {:_o"u"rt"ias---_ ii"

the High Court is concurrent. Th;'egrei?oi"e, to approach the Sessions "the High Court is thereforje riot;i.eo:hg'tere.oiated'~ci.nder law. Hence, the contention"4oﬂf_.'thef':*»S~P'i%"V"'5>hit:gthis ground is rejected.

6. 'i"he'7.secVon"d' is that in terms of Section_ .Kit?-*_of3*.tfieb_""-.Sc.heduied Castes and the Scheduied'Tribes"{F5r'e'izeriti.do'n:of Atrocities) Act, 1989, an anticgipaitory baii be granted to the accused. It is c'.orite:nded._t--hVa-t,the provision of Section 18 being ciear a'r.~d:"i.--una'rob»i.guiioiis, no Court could grant anticipatory nbaii.

i%1r'"i

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court