State Of Karnataka vs Mr.Mohammed Farook
2021 Latest Caselaw 2158 Kant

                                     -1-



   ]IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                               BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5294 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

State of Karnataka
By Mangaluru North Police Station,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
                                                            ...Petitioner

(By Sri.Showri H.R., HCGP)

AND:

Mr. Mohammed Farook,
S/o S. Ibrahim,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at 2-38/18,
Borugudde House,
Kannur, Mangaluru - 575 001.
                                                         ...Respondent
(By Sri.B.Lathief, Advocate)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
praying to set aside the judgment and order passed by the VI Additional
District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru dated 06.02.2020 in
Crl.Misc.No.148/2020 by Mangaluru North Police for the offences P/U/S
143, 147, 148, 188, 341, 427, 353, 332 and 307 R/w 149 of IPC and
Section 2(A) and (B) of Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property
Act.
                                        -2-


     This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders Through Video
Conferencing, this day, the Court made the following:

                                   ORDER

Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for

petitioner/State and the learned counsel appearing for

respondent.

2. This petition is filed seeking to set aside the order

passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.

Mangaluru, dated 06.02.2020 in Cr.Misc.No.148/2020 granting bail

to the respondent in a case registered in Crime No.132/2019 by

Mangalore North Police Station for offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 188, 341, 427, 353, 332, 307 R/W 149 of

IPC and Sections 2(A) and 2(B) of Prevention of Destruction and

Loss of Property Act, 1981.

3. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended

that the Court below has enlarged the accused on bail without

properly adverting to the material brought on record and without

considering the serious nature of the offences committed. He

submits that there are ample material collected by the investigator

during the course of investigation which clearly shows the

involvement of the respondent and other accused persons in as

many as 14 cases registered at different police stations in

Mangaluru. He contended that the reasons assigned by the trial

Court for granting relief to the respondent cannot be said to be

legal and proper and accordingly seeks to cancel the order granting

bail to the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for respondent on the other hand

would contend that the trial Court having considered the entire

facts and circumstances and after assigning reasons was pleased to

enlarge the respondent on bail. He submits that the investigation

has been completed and chargesheet is also laid. He submits that

there is absolutely no allegation of violation of any of the conditions

imposed by the trial Court and therefore seeks to reject the

petition.

5. The prosecution has alleged that on 19.12.2019 at

about 2.30 p.m. there was a protest near Mission Street Cross

Road, Mangaluru against the implementation of Citizenship

Amendment Act and during the said protest, a group of more than

200 to 300 persons gathered and started pelting stones and soda

bottles, attempted to damage the public property and also

attempted to attack police vehicles as well as police personnel.

6. The trial Court after considering the facts and

circumstances has observed that the FIR was lodged against 200 to

300 unknown persons and the involvement of the accused has to be

proved at the time of trial. It is observed that there are no specific

names mentioned in the FIR and accused being arrested in other

crimes were tagged in the present case.

7. FIR has been registered against 200 to 300 unknown

persons. The allegations against the respondent has to be proved

in a full fledged trial. There are no allegation that the respondent-

accused has misused the liberty granted to him. There are no

violation of any conditions. Respondent has no criminal

antecedents. Compelling and overwhelming circumstances are

necessary to cancel the bail once granted. In the present case, no

such circumstances are made out. Hence, petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE pgg