High Court Karnataka High Court

Saleem @ Chapper Saleem vs State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Saleem @ Chapper Saleem vs State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010

BEFORE

THE HON'B§_E MR. JUSTICE OR. KOMARAsw,mY'?.*_a."~  %

CRIMENAL PETITION NO.4:§49/gem?  

BETWEEN:

1.

.{ As':f ..  A.
"S/O Fax/a2,'  , *

SaIeem @ Chapper SaEeem__
S/O Sameeutla Baig, A
Aged about 26 years.

Azar Baig  
S/O Samiuita Baig, 

Aged abonltza:a~aéRar5'.aaTO %
Both are r~a::.idingV 

10" Cross, Gasef}gTO;*2d'anaha.!EVi""Main Road,
Bangaioreuv. " M   

A'g_<__ad Vabo u_t- .24. "ye:a"rs.

 Muzangfi @VSy é1g_}~i:wuzamii

S/O Fay"/Taz,'*--.A

*«.T«3.j'jV.~<..Ag.ed about 22 years.

  residing at 14/18,
 ._S_.'"'CrOs's, Gangondanhaili,
" Bancjatore.

1

% $2.,/'



5. Naushad

S/o Syed arrieer,

Aged about 30 years,

R/at i\lo.128, iom Cross,

Gangondanahaiti,

Bangatore.  

6. Irshad @1i'shad Khan
S/o Late Nazeer Khan,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at N058, 6"' Main, 4"' Cross,
Gangondanahalii, _     
Bangalore. V   "  .j,.r2vE'*:*.Ig"rror~iE'¥<s'

(By Sri R.P.' Chandrashekhar 8LV.R'.'V_}«('i'ra:r:, 

AND:

State of Karnata_§§a"'~.l"'  _ _,
By Chandra lay~ou't..Pvo_iice:;§V '

Bangalore  -_ ' V V.    
(Represented by i(<3aFf'i'E'VCE."P:'"L},bHC_' 
Prosecutor). ' *   .-  .. RESPONDENT

(B\,_/_Sri Sa.,t.i_€:iistrrr.R. Girjir,._V_,HVi'gh Court Government Pleader)

Petition is filed under Section--482 of Code of

:":'v_Cr1minai.hP~r'oce'd-Li,j.§i§A',::'praying to set aside the orders dated
V:~_23.9.2oo9"'iam:::3;"11.2oo9 in c.c. No.1OS78/2009 on the file of

 Add.itvi.o:'nal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore as

4j~.'a'rr«..a'E3-u_sre_gofprocess of law and direct the tower Court to consider

C' '4"_'tne~r--'eg"uIar bail application.

/

IE,/'



This Criininai Petition coming up for admission on this.~~d__ay,

the Court made the foiiowing.

ORDER

This Criminai Petition is fiied under}Sect4ion¥é’i8’2″oi

Criminal Procedure praying to set asid’e_”the o.rrt.e.r’s2da;ted

23.9.2009 and 23.11.2009 in c.c. N5:i:_os78/2ioo§’ro’h the fiie of
the VIII Additionai Chief Met.r.o”p.oiit.aVn Baniovaiore as
an abuse of process of iaw icj’ir\ie’il,.’._QCi.¥;;rt to consider

the reguiar baii

2. I haV~JeV””heaf;j “:~ea’r.n”ed coimsei for the petitioners as
weii as the i*ea’r’ned ‘Cofurt”V.f3overnment Pieacier for the

respondent _- State. *

“counsei for the petitioners Submits that a

direction”-C’__rna’yiThee ~x.iVss’ued to the iearned Sessions Judge to

V”.;~?Aco’r.sider the r_eguAi«:ar bait petition if it is fiied before the Court of

4″S’.essi3onsV. _

The factual situation is that the petitioners were granted

*~.a_nt’icipatory bail by the Court of Sessions and they were directed

fix”

to appear before the trial Court for grant of regular bail. But-__the

said bail petition filed before the trial Court was rejected’:Vo’nflth”ey<

ground that the offences are exclusiveiy triable by C'

Sessioras.

S. Learned counsel for the-.__.petit’iovn’ers lighat

petitioners are in deemed custody. Se’ctxi:on_f46(‘1’) the’3Code of

Criminal Procedure reads as ‘u-raider: 3. . ~

Section 46(1):__ ‘police officer
or other person samefshlallllactualiy touch
or confine VthVeT..b;oVdyV”oflthfe ‘to be arrested,
unlessithere to the custody by word

or action, .

Custody mean .ph__ysical custody. Submission to custody

byfwordorsac,tion’«.iVs”sufficient. In that view of the matter, there

forceuhin’ theif-.su:=bVmission of the learned counsel for the

“epetityioners. ..i\i’oVw”4’the petitioners want to move a bail petition

the,’ Court of Sessions under Sectionw439 of Code of

“‘.”:..,4(:_r’iii<iin'a§lfProcedure. If a bail petition is filed before the Court of

. ' Sessions under Secb'on~439 of Code of Crimmal Procedure by the

a,/

petitioners, the same sha/i be oflisposeo' of in acCordance.T""w,ith

law. With these observations, this Criminai Petition V.

of. V
fudge
Gss/-