Karnataka High Court
Haroonrashid vs Sayeed Ahmed And Anr on 17 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645
CRL.P No. 201572 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201572 OF 2024
(439(2)(Cr.PC)/483(3)(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
HAROONRASHID S/O HUMAYUN MASHYALAKAR,
AGE:53 YEARS,
OCC: PRESIDENT OF THE ADIL-AMANAT
CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
R/O. NEAR IBRAHIM ROZA, JORAPUR PETH,
TQ.AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI YASHAS S. DIKSHIT, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by RENUKA
1. SAYEED AHMED S/O ABDUL SATTAR INDI,
Location: HIGH AGE:57 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA OCC: BRANCH MANAGER (SUSPENDED),
R/O. GREEN PARK, HAMEED NAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GOL GUMAZ P.S.,
VIJAYAPURA, DIST. VIJAYAPURA,
R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645
CRL.P No. 201572 of 2024
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 483 (3) OF BNSS PRAYING TO
CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 03.07.2024 IN
CRL.P.NO.200652/2024 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-C. OR PASS
ANY OTHER ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to cancel the
anticipatory bail granted by this Court on 03.07.2024 in
Crl.P No.200652/2024.
Brief facts of the case:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was
the President of the Adil Amanat Credit Co-operative
Society. He gave a complaint stating that the respondent
No.1 has misappropriated the fund of Rs.4,78,06,213/-.
This Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondent
No.1 on 03.07.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner filed this petition for cancellation of bail.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645
3. Heard Sri.Yashas.S.Dikshit, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.S.S.Mamadapur, learned counsel for
the respondent No.1 and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent No.2 - State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has made a detailed report
regarding misappropriation done by respondent No.1. A
huge amount is involved in the said misappropriation. It
is the public money. In spite of several allegations
leveled against the respondent No.1, this Court granted
anticipatory bail. If such anticipatory bail is not
cancelled, it would not be possible to conduct detail
enquiry to unearth the true facts about the
misappropriation.
5. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 after
having obtained anticipatory bail threatened the
petitioner and others that he would not spare them.
Therefore, it is necessary to cancel the bail as he has
violated the one of the conditions of which he obtained
anticipatory bail.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 filed
a detailed statement of objections and he submitted that
the respondent No.1 has not violated any conditions of
the bail granted by this Court. The bail can be cancelled
only in the case if the respondent No.1 violated any of
the conditions. Mere making allegations that the
respondent No.1 has threatened the petitioner, that
cannot be sufficient to hold that he has violated the
conditions. Having said thus, he prays to dismiss the
application / petition.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.2 - State adopted the arguments of the
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and he prays to
cancel the bail petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the order of anticipatory bail
granted to the respondent No.1 by this Court, this Court
had imposed one of the conditions while granting the bail
that he should not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
However, it appears that, he has not violated any of the
conditions.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645
9. Having considered the submissions, it is relevant to refer
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Himanshu Sharma v. State of M.P.,1 it lays a
guidelines for cancellation of bail. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in paragraph No.11 held as under.
"11. Law is well settled by a catena of
judgments rendered by this Court that the
considerations for grant of bail and cancellation
thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an
accused can only be cancelled if the Court is
satisfied that after being released on bail:
(a) the accused has misused the liberty
granted to him;
(b) flouted the conditions of bail order;
(c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of
statutory provisions restricting the powers of
the Court to grant bail;
(d) or that the bail was procured by
misrepresentation or fraud.
(emphasis in original)
10. Having considered the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and on going through the records, it can be inferred
(2024) 4 SCC 222
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1645
that, the respondent No.1 has not violated any
conditions. Even assuming that one more FIR has been
registered against the respondent No.1 on 26.07.2024,
the fact remains that, there is a delay in lodging the
complaint. It appears that the second FIR has been filed
with an ulterior motive with vengeance. Therefore, the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
11. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
UN
CT:PK
