Lukman @ Lukman Hakeem vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12078 Kant

                               1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8762 OF 2022

BETWEEN

LUKMAN @ LUKMAN HAKEEM
S/O ABBAS,
AGEDA BOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR JUMMA MASJID,
MADANI NAGAR, MUNNOOR VILLAGE,
MANGALURU TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT 575017.
                                       ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ULLALA POLICE STATION,
D.K.DISTRICT,
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
                                          ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN CR.NO.635/2016 REGISTERED BY ULLAL POLICE
STATION, D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 457 AND
380 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
SENIOR    CIVIL  JUDGE    AND   C.J.M., MANGALURU    IN
C.C.NO.389/2017.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                           2


                       ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

No.2, under section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting

anticipatory bail in Crime No.635/2016 registered by

Ullal Police Station, D.K. District for the offence

punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with 34

of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for

petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint of one Mahabala who filed complaint on

17.12.2016 alleging that he was running service

station in the name of Sunanda Service Station petrol

bunk and on 16.12.2016 at night he had closed the

petrol bunk and the next day morning i.e., on

17.12.16 when he came to the petrol bunk he came to

know the petrol bunk was burgled and stolen of cash

amount of Rs.51,240/-from the petrol bunk. After

registering the case against unknown persons police

said to have arrested accused No.1 on 21.12.2016

and recovered Rs.2,000/- and he said to be released

on 18.1.2017 and on the voluntary statement this

petitioner name was shown as accused No.2 in the

charge sheet shown as absconding. Hence he is

apprehending the arrest in the hands of the police, he

approached Session Judge for anticipatory bail which

came to be rejected, hence he is before this court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that he is a permanent resident and he was

also facing criminal trial in CC.No.1478/2018 in the

same police station continuously from the year 2016

and it ended in acquittal in March 2022 and he was

not at all aware of filing of charge sheet in this case

showing the name of the petitioner as absconding.

Even police who attended the previous criminal cases

did not intimate and tried to arrest the petitioner and

now he came to know about pending of the case, he

is ready to abide by any condition, hence approached

for granting bail.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP objected the bail

petition and submits that the petitioner is a habitual

offender and he is facing so many criminal trials under

Section 380 of IPC hence prayed for rejecting the bail

petition.

6. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of

the records, which reveals of course case was

registered against the unknown persons in the year

2016 and that accused No.1 is said to be arrested and

recovered with Rs.2,000/- as on 21.12.2016 and he

was released on bail on 18.1.2017. Thereafter the

police filed charge sheet while showing his name as

absconding in the year 2017 itself. The charge sheet

came to filed on 8.9.2017, the petitioner counsel

produced certified copy of the judgment in

CC No.1478/18 where the same Ullal police registered

case against the petitioner and others and was facing

the trial and case was ended in acquittal on 25.3.2022

and he was regularly appearing before the court in the

case in the same police station, but the police not

chosen to arrest the petitioner or trying to arrest the

petitioner for almost an year and now trying to arrest.

Therefore, considering the fact and circumstances of

the case, if the bail is granted no prejudice would be

caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the

following,

ORDER

Accordingly, this Criminal petition is allowed.

The respondent/Police are directed to release the

petitioners/accused No.2 on bail in the event of their

arrest in Crime No.635/2016 registered by Ullal Police

Station, D.K. District for the offence punishable under

Sections 457 and 380 read with 34 of IPC, subject to

the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

(ii) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

(iii) Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iv) Petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

(v)     Petitioner shall be deemed custody for
        the   purpose        of   any    recovery      under

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and

(vi) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation; and

(vii) Petitioner after the release shall move the regular bail to the Magistrate.

If any of the above conditions are violated, the

prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this

bail order.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKV