I -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRL.P.NO.10425/201 1 Between: Suhail (Husain Patel) S/o.Khaja Patel, Aged about 39 years, Permanent Resident of “Rahan” Door No.14/2, Bunder Road, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada District. Petitioner (By Sri.Murthy D.Nayak, Advocate) And: The State, By Bhatkal Town P.S. Police, Reptd. by S.P.P. High Court, Dharwad. Respondent (By Sri.P.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed u/S.438 of Cr.P.C. seeking that the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Bhatkal Town P.S., Crime No.618/1993 pending before the JMFC Court, Bhatkal in C.C.No.2077/ 1999 for the offences p/u/s. 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 323 & 114 r/w. 149 of IPC shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions. This petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following: I -2- ORDER The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail, following a case being registered against him in Crime No.618/1993 by the Bhatkal Town Police Station in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 323 & 114 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case in short is that, as per the complaint version, one Mahadev was having a pan shop by the side of the Bunder Road in Bhatkal, and on 22.08.1993 at about 7.30 p.m., the complainant was carrying fish to deliver to Durgappa, and on his way, he saw Mahadev being assaulted by eight accused persons who later died. Therefore, the complainant went to the police station and lodged the complaint. 3. The only ground upon which the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail is that, he is not Suhail, who is mentioned as one of the accused persons, and merely because the name of the petitioner also is Suhail, he suspects that he may be arrested. In this connection, the learned counsel for the I -3- petitioner referred to the voters list and the vehicle registration. 4. On the other hand, the submission of the Additional S.P.P. is that, the very fact that the petitioner has stated in ground No.3 of his petition that he is working since 1994 at Dubai as Lab-technician itself goes to show that the documents now produced are not genuine documents and these documents are falsified by the very stand taken in ground No.3 of the bail application. Moreover, the offence alleged also includes Section 302 of the IPC and, as such, the grant of anticipatory bail is not warranted. 5. Having thus heard both sides, particularly taking note of the ground taken at para-3 of the petition, there is enough force in the submission put forward by the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State and the petition will have to be rejected. The petitioner is not the person who is named as one of the accused persons and as such grant of anticipatory bail is not desirable particularly having regard to the nature of the offences alleged. -4- 6. The petition is therefore rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move the application for regular bail before the trial court. Sd! JUDGE Vup *