Allowed

Nissar S/O Mahiboobsab Shaik v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2020CRL.P/200572/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, an accused in a murder case punishable under the IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, fixing a bond with sureties and imposing conditions against tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Nissar S/O Mahiboobsab Shaik Vs the State of Karnataka… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200572/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Nissar S/o Mahiboobsab Shaik, Aged about: 27 years, Occ: Tiles work, R/o Towkal Shah Oni, Indi, Tq: Indi, Dist: Vijayapura Dist: Vijayapur-586 209.

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Sanjay.A.Patil, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka through, Police, Indi Police Station, Tq: Indi, Dist: Vijayapur-586 209. Represented by Addl. SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench.

¶12

Smt. Shantabai W/o Sayabanna Niranjana, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Household work, R/o Sunagar Oni, Indi, Tq: Indi, Dist: Vijayapura-586209.

¶13

… Respondents (By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP for R1; By Sri. B.C.Jaka, Advocate for R2)

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, praying to allow the petition there by enlarge the petitioner on bail (Crime No.23/2020 registered by Indi Police Station) in Spl. Case (SC/ST) No.12/2020 pending on the file II Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge at Vijayapur trying for the offences punishable U/Sec.302, 201 R/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST PA Amendment Act as per charge sheet, in the interest of justice.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.23/2020 registered by Indi Police Station against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘SC/ST (PA) Act’) on the basis of the first information lodged by the mother of the deceased Devendra. The informant stated that on 06.03.2020, she came to know that the dead body of the deceased was

¶19

¶20

found and it is suspected that it was a homicidal death. Therefore, she lodged the first information against unknown person. The FIR was registered accordingly. On 07.03.2020, the informant gave further statement stating that accused No.1 had borrowed a hand loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the deceased and the deceased was insisting accused No.1 to return the same. About 15 days earlier to the incident, the deceased insisted accused No.1 to pay back the amount and threaten with dire consequences, if he fails to return the amount. Therefore to eliminate the deceased accused No.1 with the help of accused No.2 caused death of the deceased Devendra by assaulting him with an axe.

¶21

It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 was having motive to cause death of the deceased. CW15-Shakeel had last seen the deceased in the company of accused Nos.1 and 2 and the axe used in commission of the offence was seized at the instance of

¶22

¶23

accused No.1. After investigation charge sheet is filed against both the accused for the above said offences.

¶24

Heard Sri Sanjay A.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Mallikarjun Sahukar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri.B.C.Jaka, learned counsel for respondent No.2 /complainant.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶26

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. No motive is alleged against the present petitioner to cause the death of the deceased. No incriminating materials were recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. The only allegation against this petitioner is that he assisted accused No.1 in causing death of the deceased. There are no eye witnesses to the incident. The petitioner was apprehended on 11.03.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. Accused No.1 is also apprehended and he is also in judicial custody. This petitioner is not required for

¶27

¶28

custodial interrogation since the charge sheet is already filed. His detention in custody will amount to pre trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that will be imposed by this court. Hence he prays for allowing the petition.

¶29

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State opposing the petition submits that serious allegations are made against both the accused. Accused No.2 actively assisted accused No.1 in commission of the offence. CW15 had last seen the deceased in the company of accused No.1 and 2 the motorcycle used by accused No.2 during commission of the offence is seized at his instance. The charge sheet is already filed. It makes out strong prima-facie case against the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is

¶30

¶31

not entitled for grant of bail and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

The learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant also opposed the application contending that serious allegations of committing the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC is made against both the accused and the petitioner is not entitle for grant of bail.

¶33

Perused the materials on record in the light of

¶34

the rival submissions made before this Court. This petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. The specific allegation made against the petitioner is that he assisted accused No.1 in eliminating the deceased and both the accused took the deceased to the place of occurrence and

¶35

it was accused No.2, who assisted the accused No.1 in assaulting with an axe. It is not in dispute that accused No.2 had not assaulted the deceased to cause his death. It is stated that accused No.2 was talking with the deceased and taking advantage of the situation, accused

¶36

¶37

No.1 had assaulted him with an axe and caused his death. Admittedly, there are no eye witness to the incident and the prosecution is relying on the circumstantial evidence. It is also admitted that the present petitioner was not having any specific motive to eliminate the deceased. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 11.03.2020. The investigation is completed and detention of the petitioner in custody is not required for any purpose other than to ensured his presence before the Trial court and protect the interest of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the petitioner may abscond or he may involve in similar offences can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following.

¶38

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

a) The petitioner shall not commit similar offence.

¶42

b) The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶43

c) The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶44

SMP

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

Nissar S/O Mahiboobsab Shaik v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nissar S/O Mahiboobsab Shaik v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

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

Abdul Wajeed S/O Late Abdul Sattar Vs the State through

Amarayya S/O Andanayya Swamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagappa Vs the State

Sabanna Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Avinash S/O Babulal Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka