SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
K. Natarajan, J.
Mohammed Shariq and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No.2693 of 2021 connected with Criminal Petition No.2699 of 2021
Decided on 23.7.2021

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Sri Mohammed Sultan Beary, Advocate for Smt. Suman Hegde, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri V.S. Hegde, S.P.P-II, a/w Sri Thejesh P., HCGP

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Accused shall not be entitled to be released on bail only that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against such person is prima facie.
(2) Once UA(P) Act is invoked, Magistrate has no power to extend beyond 90 days and only Special Court has power to extend detention beyond 90 days.

Headnote:

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43D – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 167(2) – Default bail – Crime registered for offence punishable under Section 153A of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1951 and Sections 13 and 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – In one case, Police have already filed charge-sheet and cognizance has been taken and in another case, charge-sheet is yet to be filed – It is a very serious offence giving open challenge to patriotism of nation and waging war against State – There is material to show that they are having connection with terrorist group – Accused shall not be entitled to be released on bail only that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against such person is prima facie true – On merits, petitioners are not entitled for bail – However, once Police invoked UA(P) Act against accused automatically file has to be transferred to Special Court established under NIA Act – JMFC has no power to extend detention or custody for more than 90 days or 180 days as per Section 43D(2) of UA(P) Act and accused has already moved application for default bail before Magistrate – Special Court alone has to extend limitation of detention or judicial custody but not Magistrate – In view of offence under UA(P) Act invoked by Police, Magistrate shall have to refer or commit the matter to Special Court but cannot extend time limit more than 90 days in one case – Charge-sheet came to be filed within 180 days – Once UA(P) Act is invoked, Magistrate has no power to extend beyond 90 days and only Special Court has power to extend detention beyond 90 days – Petitioners are entitled for default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., which is indefeasible right accrued for petitioners-accused – Bail granted. (Paras 13, 17 and 25)

Result: Criminal Petitions allowed.

ORDER

K. Natarajan, J.—Crl.P.No.2693/2021 is filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 - accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.104/2020 registered by the Mangalore East Post Station for the offence punishable under Section 153A of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1951 (for short ‘KOPD Act’) pending on the file of VI J.M.F.C. Court, D.K., Mangaluru. Crl.P.No.2699/2021 is filed by the same petitioners / accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.89/2020 registered by Mangalore North Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 153A of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the KOPD Act and subsequently, in both the cases the Police inserted Section 153A of IPC and Sections 13 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short ‘UA(P) Act’).

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II for the respondent – State.

3. The case of the prosecution in Crime No.104/2020 registered by the Mangaluru East Police Station is that the complainant - Sudheer Kumar filed a complaint to the Police on 27.11.2020 at 7.30 p.m., alleging that he is residing in plot No.207 at Ventura Apartment, Mangaluru. That on 26.11.2020 at about 10.00 p.m., he came to the apartment and on 27.11.2020 at about 6.45 a.m., he found some unknown persons wrote some words on the compound wall using black spray paint stating “Do Not Force Us to Invite Lashkar-E-Taiba and Taliban to Deal with Sanghis and Manvedis # Lashkar Zindabad” and stated that some unknown culprits had disfigured the compound wall. After registering of the case by the Police under Section 153A of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the KOPD Act and during the investigation, the Police have arrested both the petitioners on 3.12.2020. Accused No.1 is said to have been taken into the Police custody and subsequently, he was remanded to judicial custody.

4. The fact of the case in Crime No.89/2020 is that one Devaraj, Chief Administrative Officer of the District Court, Mangaluru filed a complaint on 28.11.2020 before Mangaluru North Police Station alleging that some unknown culprits made a writing on the wall of the Out-Post Police Station situated in the premises of District Court, Mangaluru as “Gustak E Rasool Ki Ek Hi Saja Sar Tan Say Juda” and the case was registered under the KOPD Act and during the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner in Crime No.104/2020 is the accused in this case also. Hence, they added Section 153A of IPC and also Sections 13 and 39 of UA(P) Act.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Accused No.2-Maaz Muneer Ahmed got surrendered himself before the Police on 1.12.2020. As per the direction of Police, accused No.2 approached the Circuit House, Mangaluru at around 11 a.m., along with his sister and father and the Police took the accused to their custody. Then they visited Thirthahalli, Shivamogga District and raided the Commercial Complex/Shops run by accused No.3 on 2.12.2020 around 4.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m., and five Police personnel arrested accused No.3. The Police asked the accused to call his relative one Aneesa Fathima who lives in Mutthinakoppa which is around 40 kms away from Thirthahalli and asked the accused to enquire about the whereabouts of accused No.1. Earlier to the incident, accused No.3 had informed to his wife that he is visiting Axis Bank ATM to draw cash of Rs.20,000/-. The Police took custody of Asim Abdul Majid who is the resident of Sappugudde, AK Colony, Thirthahalli from his shop and also Mohammed Asgar who is the resident of Seebinakere, Thirthahalli from Kohinoor Kids Wear where he works as an employee. After their pleading, they have been left by the Police. Thereafter, the Police searched accused No.1 by visiting the house of accused No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top