Dismissed

Ismail S/O Khalandarsab Kunkur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2021CRL.P/100475/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. sought bail for an accused charged under Sections 307, 341, 354-D, and 506 IPC. The High Court rejected the plea, citing the serious nature of the assault causing grievous injury, the use of a weapon, lack of attempt to flee, and potential for witness tampering, thereby refusing regular bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ismail S/O Khalandarsab Kunkur Vs the State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100475/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ISMAIL S/O KHALANDARSAB KUNKUR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK AND AUTO DRIVER, R/O: RAMAPUR, TQ: KUNDAGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-580011.

¶8

…. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI:V.P.VADAVI, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SUB-URBAN P.S.HUBBALLI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶12

.... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI:RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. SEEKING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.105/2020 IN HUBLI SUB-URBAN P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 307, 341,

¶15

¶16

354-D, 506 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBLI.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner who is the sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.105/2020 of Hubli SubUrban Police Station, initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 341, 354(D) and 506 of the Indian penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity), on the basis of first information lodged by the first informant-Smt.Bibijan.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant-Bibijan filed the first information with SubUrban Police Station, Hubli on 21.12.2020 at 12.10 noon, against the accused stating that the victim aged about 21 years is her daughter. She was working in Seema Gold Shop. As she had sustained injuries to her leg, the informant had engaged the

¶21

¶22

auto-rickshaw driven by the accused to pick and drop her daughter to the work place and back to home. Taking advantage of the situation, the accused started insisting the victim to marry him. Therefore, the informant stopped sending her daughter in the auto-rickshaw of the accused and her daughter started going to the Shop in the bus. It is stated that accused started contacting the victim and pressurising her to marry him.

¶23

It is stated that on 21.12.2020, at about 10.00 a.m., the informant received phone call from her son, who informed that accused had assaulted the victim near Punjab National Bank, Deshpande Nagar, Hubali with chopper. Immediately, the informant rushed to the spot, found her daughter severely injured. Manjunath Shekhappa Belagali was at the spot and stated that the accused came with a chopper and assaulted the victim 3-4 times and ran away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately, the injured was shifted to Vivekanand Hospital in an ambulance. Therefore, the informant requested the

¶24

¶25

police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up the investigation.

¶26

Heard Sri.V.P.Vadavi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Ramesh B. Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondentState. Perused the materials on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter. The accused is aged 25 years and he is the only bread earner in the family. The injured is discharged from the hospital and she has sustained only simple injuries. The investigation is already completed. The petitioner was apprehended on 21.12.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pretrial punishment. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by

¶28

¶29

any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition.

¶30

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Victim girl is aged 21 years and the accused took advantage of the situation as she was traveling in his auto-rickshaw and started insisting her to marry him. Even after the victim stopped traveling in the auto-rickshaw belonging to the accused, he used to insist her to marry him. He assaulted the victim with Kandli (a sharp edged weapon, like chopper) and caused grievous hurt. She took treatment in the hospital as inpatient. The wound certificate discloses that she has sustained grievous hurt on her scalp. The weapon used in the commission of offences was recovered at the instance of accused. The investigation is already completed. CWs.9 to 12 are the eye witnesses to the incident. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is already recorded. Looking to the

¶31

¶32

seriousness of the offences, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail and prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

In view of the rival contentions urged by

¶34

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶35

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶36

My answer to the above point is in the Negative for the following:

¶37

REASONS

¶38

The allegations made against the petitioner

¶39

are of serious nature. It is alleged that on the date of incident during broad day light at 10.00 am, the accused has assaulted the victim with Kandli and caused multiple injuries. The wound certificate produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader discloses that she had sustained five injuries, which are grievous in nature. Those injuries include laceration on scalp and other parts of the body . It is

¶40

¶41

stated that weapon used in the commission of the offences is seized at the instance of accused. Statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. It is stated that there are eye witnesses to the incident, who are cited as CWs.9 to 12. Moreover, the accused and the victim hails from the same village. There is every possibility of accused committing similar offence, which will deter the victim and the informant from deposing before the Court.

¶42

For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail at this stage. Hence, I answer the above point in the ‘Negative’. The petition is dismissed accordingly.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

KGK

Ismail S/O Khalandarsab Kunkur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ismail S/O Khalandarsab Kunkur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Annappa Kallappa Nayar Vs Sri.Iranna Kallappa Galibi

Shri Husainsab Imran S/O Hasansab Shaikh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Maheshkumar S/O Achayya Kastala Vs the State of Karnataka

Yallappa S/O. Neelappa Doddamani Vs Santosh S/O. Balappa Danammanavar

The City Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd. Vs Ram Gajanan Khatavkar

Erappa S/O Late Thimmappa Vs the State of Karnataka