Allowed

Daulath S/O Husain Sab Agasibagelu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2018CRL.P/101453/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by an accused in IPC 302/201. The Karnataka High Court allowed the bail, granting regular release on a personal bond with sureties subject to conditions not to tamper with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to not tampering with witnesses.

Daulath S/O Husain Sab Agasibagelu Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶6

Crl.P.No.101453 of 2018

¶7

Between:

¶8

Daulath S/o.Husain Sab Agasibagelu, Age 24 years, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o.: Diddi Oni, Koppal.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Shri B.Anwar Basha, advocate)

¶11

And:

¶12

The State of Karantaka, (Through Koppal Rural Police Station), Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Dahrwad.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(By Shri Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)

¶15

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to allow this petition and enlarge the petitioner-accused No.1 on regular bail in connection with Cr.No.299 of 2015 of Koppal Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC pending trial.

¶16

This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

: 2 :

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶20

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.299 of 2015 of Koppal Rural P.S for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

¶21

The substance of the complaint is that the complainant-Prabhugouda Malipatil lodged complaint on 27.12.2015 before the Koppal Rural Police Station stating that the complainant and Devappa Valikar, Chinnappa Hyati, Nagappa Channnadasar were sitting in a hotel, belonging to one Smt.Bheemavva and at that time, one Yamanurappa Valmiki resident of Hosahalli village came to hotel and alleged to have stated that his wife has seen one dead body of male person at 2:00 p.m. at kerendahalla of Chukanakal village. It is further alleged that the complainant and others went to the said spot and saw the dead body lying near the land of one Shantilal Seth. The

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

Said dead body was completely burnt and could not be identified and it is further found that half burn green colour banian sleeves of the white shift and pieces of black pant notice on the dead body on the spot. Based on the compliant filed by the complainant, a case in Crime No.299 of 2015 was registered for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, the accused were arrested. Accused No.1 confessed the guilt and the other accused persons given their voluntary statement and all of them confessed of committing the crime. In the voluntary statement of accused No.1 stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 had money transaction with the deceased and they have got enmity with the deceased-Nazeersab Maniyar.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence much less the offences alleged against him. He further submits that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the prosecution has failed to make out any case against the petitioner. Hence, prays for allowing the bail petition filed by the petitioner.

¶25

: 4 :

¶26

The learned HCGP opposes the bail application and submits that the bail application filed before the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.27 of 2016 came to be dismissed on 02.07.2018, wherein at paragraph No.6 it is held as under:

¶27

“6. That Koppal Rural Police have filed false charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 at the instance of some persons, who are having inimical terms with accused on political motivated efforts and since, already Charge sheet is laid before the Court, and prosecution has examined all the material witnesses, as shown in the charge sheet and now case is set down for 313 Cr.P.C. statement of the accused. On perusal of the prosecution evidence placed on record, there is no case against accused No.1 to connect his involvement in the commission of the non-bailable offences as disclosed in the charge sheet. And, all the witnesses, who have been examined, have not stated any incriminating evidence. Hence, there is no apprehension of tampering or hampering the witnesses, by this accused No.1. Accused No1 is the only bread earning member of his family, and now mother of the accused No.1 is suffering from illhealth and bed-ridden and presence of accused No.1, is must to attend his mother and to take care

¶28

: 5 :

¶29

of his mother and more over accused No.1 is in judicial custody since more than 25 months and petitioner-accused No.1 is ready to furnish sufficient surety in the event of his release on bail, to the satisfaction of this Court and to abide any conditions, that may be imposed upon him. Hence, on these grounds, the counsel for accused No.1 prays to allow this bail petition filed for accused No.1.”

¶30

Hence, he prays for dismissal of the bail petition.

¶31

In the context of the circumstance, it is necessary to mention Section 232 of Cr.P.C., which reads as under:

¶32

“232. Acquittal.- If, after taking the evidence for the prosecution, examining the accused and hearing the prosecuting and the defence on the point, the Judge considers that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, the Judge shall record an order of acquittal.”

¶33

The petitioner is in judicial custody from 09.01.2016 and his previous applications for bail came be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and as well as before this Court in Crl.P.No.100962 of 2016, dated 24^th October 2016.

¶34

: 6 :

¶35

Further, there are no complaints of interference with the prosecution witnesses or evidence as against the petition. The case is pending and the petitioner continues to be in custody and no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution in case the bail petition is allowed. However, the apprehension of the prosecution would be resolved by imposing conditions. Hence, the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.299 of 2015 of Koppal Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties possessing immovable properties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court subject to the following condition:-

¶38

a) Petitioner shall not terrorize or tamper any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Vnp*

Daulath S/O Husain Sab Agasibagelu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daulath S/O Husain Sab Agasibagelu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Sameer S/O. Hussainbasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath @ Kadamanja S/O Shyamanna Nayak @Bhavani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Vijayendra S/O Prahladacharya Panchamukhi Vs Smt. Renuka W/O Vijayendar Panchamukhi

Shivayogeppa S/O. Basavanneppa Bilagi Vs the Cardmom Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Punit S/O Bhimasing Rajaput Vs State of Karnataka

Paramesh @ Pujari Parameshi @ Parameshi Vs the State of Karnataka