Karnataka High Court
Abeed Basha vs State Of Karnataka By on 28 September, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7617/2017
BETWEEN:
1. ABEED BASHA
S/O SIKANDAR BASHA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/O NAVALAPURA, RANIPET
VALAJA TALUK
VELLORE DISTRICT
TAMILNADU.
2. KUMARAVELU
S/O D. MANI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O. 1/81, PILLIYAR TEMPLE ROAD
KILLUMANNAL VILLAGE
YATHANAGIRI POST, VALAJA TALUK
VELLORE DISTRICT
TAMILNADU.
3. S. HYDER SAB
S/O S. ABDUL KHADER
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/O NO.6/12, MASJID ROAD
CHAMBAKAR VILLAGE
RAMASAMUDRAM MANDAL
PUNGANUR TALUK
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
4. RANJITH
S/O KUPPAN
2
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/O NO.37, V.M. ROAD
MUDALIYAR, NAVALAPUR RANIPET
VALAJA TALUK
VELLORE DISTRICT
TAMILNADU. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KOLAR TOWN POLICE
KOLAR
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.118/2016 OF THE RESPONDENT KOLAR TOWN
POLICE, KOLAR, WHICH IS PENDING IN S.C.NO.91/2017
ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, KOLAR FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 489-B,
489-C, 420, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners were arrested by the respondent - police in connection with Crime No.118/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 489-B, 489-C, 420, 511 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3
2. The allegations made against these petitioners are that on 5.8.2016 at about 7.30 a.m., the Inspector of Police, Kolar Town Police Station, received a credible information that fake currency notes were sought to be transported from Bangalore to Tirupathi via Kolar in two cars. Immediately, the complainant and his staff came near Chockka Conventional Hall on the highway and having found two cars coming from Bangalore side, they stopped the cars and made a search. They found currency notes valuing Rs.35,32,500/- packed in two plywood boxes. The police conducted a panchanama at the spot, seized the currency notes and arrested the accused.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the Police Inspector immediately after receiving the credible information, should have registered the FIR and proceeded to the spot. Without registering FIR, if they 4 went to seize the currency notes, it was against law and therefore, the entire seizure would become illegal. In support of his argument, he places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of LALITA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS - (2014) 2 SCC 1 and L.SHANKARAMURTHY AND OTHERS v. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, CITY DIVISION, BANGALORE URBAN DIVISION, BANGALORE - (2012) 5 KLJ 545. He further argues that the offence under Section 489-C is bailable one and that there is no material for invoking the other offences. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to bail.
4. The High Court Government Pleader argues that there may be procedural irregularities, but the fact remains that the fake currency notes were recovered from the possession of the accused. These petitioners are all from Tamil Nadu and that there is no guarantee 5 that they will appear before the Court during the trial and hence, he prays for rejecting the petition.
5. With regard to the arguments of the petitioner's counsel regarding procedural irregularities, it is a matter to be appreciated by the trial Court. However, for deciding the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. what is to be seen is the existence of prima-facie material. The police have invoked the offences under Sections 489-B and 489-C of IPC. Whether the petitioners can be connected to offence under Section 489B IPC is a matter to be established before the trial Court. At the best, the offence under Section 489-C of IPC gets attracted from the allegations made in the complaint, and this offence is bailable. The investigation is also completed and charge sheet is filed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be released on bail. However, the apprehension expressed by the High Court Government Pleader that these petitioners 6 may not appear before the trial Court has to be taken into consideration. Therefore, the following:
ORDER Petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The petitioners are subjected to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioners shall regularly appear before the Court during trial;
(ii) Petitioners shall not destroy the evidence and threaten the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) If the petitioners fail to appear before the trial Court even on a single hearing date will automatically result in cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB