1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6989/2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7211/2018 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7241/2018 IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6989/2018 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VITLA POLICE STATION, BANTWAL CIRCLE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: HONNAPPA, HCGP) AND: 1 . ANWAR S/O ABDULLA, AGED 21 YEARS, R/AT MUGULI HOUSE, KAROPADY VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574211 2 . SAJAF S/O HAMEED, AGED 22 YEARS, COOLI, R/AT MITHANADKA, KAROPADY VILLAGE, 2 BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574211 3 . MOHAMMED NAUFAL S/O ISMAIL, AGED 19 YEARS, COOLI,. R/AT KUDPULTADKA, KAROPADY VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574211 4 . IBRAHIM KHALEEL S/O UMMER, AGED 22 YEARS, R/AT THALIPADPU, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574211 …RESPONDENTS ******* THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER DATED 07.05.2018 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.491/2018 IN CONNECTION WITH THE CR.NO.165/2018 OF VITLA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 341, 153-A, 324 AND 307 R/W 149 OF IPC AND DIRECT THAT THE ACCUSED TO BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY. IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7211/2018 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY POLICE INSPECTOR OF VITLA STATION DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01. ...PETITIONER 3 (BY SRI: HONNAPPA, HCGP) AND 1 . ABDUL NAUFAL, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED, R/A SUNKADAKATTE HOUSE, KURUDAPADAVU POST, PAIVALIKE MANJESHWARA TQ, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2 . RAZIK A K, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O KUNHI AHAMMED A K, R/A DOOR NO.1/442A, SUNKADAKATTE, KURUDAPADAVU POST, PAIVALIKE MANJESHWARA TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: UMESH P.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) ******* THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER DATED 25.05.2018, PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN CRL.MIS.NO.512/2018 IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME NO.165/2018 OF VITLA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 341, 153-A, 324 ,307 R/W 149 OF IPC AND DIRECT THAT THE ACCUSED TO BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY. IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7241/2018 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA 4 BY POLICE INSPECTOR OF VITLA STATION DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI: HONNAPPA, HCGP) AND MR.MANSOOR S. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHIMAN, R/AT SUNKADAKATTE HOUSE, KURUDAPADAVU POST, PAIVALIKE, MANJESHWARA TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI: UMESH P.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) ******* THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL ORDER DATED 02.06.2018, PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN CRL.MIS.NO.558/2018 IN CONNECTION WITH THE CRIME NO.165/2018 OF VITLA POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 341, 153-A, 324 ,307 R/W 149 OF IPC AND DIRECT THAT THE ACCUSED TO BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY. THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 5 O R D E R Heard the learned HCGP appearing for the petitioner/State in all these petitions and the learned counsel for the respondents in Crl.P.No.7211/2018 and Crl.P.No.7241/2018. Perused the petitions and the grounds urged therein. 2. The State has filed these petitions calling in question the orders passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, granting bail to some of the accused persons in Crime No.165/2018 of Vitla Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 323, 504, 506, 341, 143, 147, 148, 149 of IPC. 3. In Criminal Petition No.6989/2018, as per the charge sheet, respondent Nos.1 to 4 were arraigned as accused Nos.3, 5, 2 and 6. In Criminal Petition No.7211/2018, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 4. In Criminal Petition No.7241/2018, respondent No.1 is cited as accused No.8. 6 4. The State has preferred the above said petitions for cancellation of bail granted by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru. In Crl.Misc.No.491/2018, the Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to accused Nos.3, 5, 2 and 6 respectively. In Crl.Misc.No.512/2018, the same Court has granted regular bail under section 439 for the above said offences to accused Nos.1 and 4. In Crl.Misc.No.558/2018, the Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to accused No.8. The said orders are called in question before this Court. 5. It is the fundamental basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that whenever bail is granted by the Sessions Court, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, strong and undefeatable grounds have to be made out for the purpose of cancellation of such bail which was granted by exercising discretionary powers of the court. Therefore, this court has to examine whether the State has made out any such strong grounds to interfere with the orders passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, 7 Mangaluru in order to cancel the bail granted in favour of the above said accused persons. 6. Brief factual matrix of the case in Crime No.165/2018 of Vitla Police Station, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, that on 16.04.2018, a person by name Harish of Karopady village in Bantwal Taluk lodged a complaint stating that on that particular date, he had been to Anekal and then he was returning to Karopady village and when he reached near a place called Seraje at about 9.45 a.m. in the morning, four persons came in two motorbikes and intercepted his way and started quarrelling with him by abusing him in filthy language. The accused Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 by name Mohammed Naufal, Anwar, Sajaf and Ibrahim Khaleel assaulted the complainant with their hands and caused simple injuries assaulting him on his face, ears, back and chest. It is further stated, the complainant also saw one more group nearby, which was a Muslim group holding deadly weapons in their hands. On seeing them, the complainant ran away towards his house and thereafter, he went 8 to Adarsha hospital and took treatment and lodged the complaint. 7. The Sessions Court considered that the said group consisting of Muslim boys holding deadly weapons has not done anything. According to the complaint averments, after seeing them, the complainant ran away. The only allegation against the said accused persons by name Mohammed Naufal, Anwar, Sajaf and Ibrahim Khaleel is that they assaulted the complainant with their hands. Therefore, considering the above factual aspects that at the initial stage there was absolutely no allegation with regard to accused persons assaulted the complainant with any deadly weapons, and the persons who were holding deadly weapons have not actually assaulted the complainant. The Sessions Court also observed that subsequently the further statement of the complainant was recorded wherein he inculpated other Muslim group as assailants with deadly weapons. Therefore, on considering the above said earlier and subsequent statement of the complainant, the Sessions Court has granted anticipatory bail to the above said accused persons. 9 Considering that the learned Sessions Judge making comparative study of the initial complaint and the subsequent statement and granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons is no way illegal or against any principles of law. The Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to the above said respondents in the above said petitions with stringent conditions. It is not the case of the State that the said respondents have violated any of the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. This also in my opinion weighs in favour of the respondents in order to reject the petitions filed by the State. 8. Under the above said facts and circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the petitions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Bss. .