Allowed

Shri.Gajbarsab Gulabsab Multani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2021CRL.P/101519/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail petition was filed by the accused in a murder case punishable under Sections 302 and 504 IPC. The High Court allowed the bail, imposing conditions including a personal bond, sureties, and prohibition on tampering with witnesses or committing similar offences, noting the discharge of the present maker.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, no witness tampering, and no further offences.

Shri.Gajbarsab Gulabsab Multani Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101519/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

GAJBARSAB GULABSAB MULTANI, AGE 36 YRS,. OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O INGALGI, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591 309

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH YAMANKANMARDI POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶12

.. RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶14

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER /ACCUSED IN YAMAKANMARDI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.80/2020 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS SC NO.167/2020 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 AND 504 OF IPC.

¶15

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting regular bail in Crime No.80/2020 registered by the Yamakanamardi Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity).

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that one Shanubadasha Gaji, a friend of the deceased Saddamhussain filed a complaint to the police on 09.04.2020 alleging that on 09.04.2020 at 5.30 pm when himself and the deceased went to the land, at that time, they saw the accused releasing water to his(accused’s) land. At that time, when the deceased questioned the accused from where he is releasing water, the accused informed that he is releasing water from deceased’s water pipeline and at that time when the deceased said to have questioned as to how he is releasing the water from his land, then the accused is said to have abused the deceased in filthy language and took out a weapon and tried to assault on the

¶20

¶21

neck which fell on the leg of the deceased and later he was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. After registering the case, the police arrested the petitioner on 10.04.2020 and he was taken to custody. The petitioner moved bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.1241/2020 which came to be rejected on 08.09.2020. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the case. Even on looking to the material, the averments made in the complaint does not attract Section 302 of IPC as the injury is on the leg and the cause of death was due to respiratory failure and that the petitioner had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased. The investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner is in custody for more than 7 months and he is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, he prayed for granting bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶24

the respondent-State objected to the bail petition and contended

¶25

¶26

that there are sufficient material placed on record which show that the petitioner has committed the offence. CWs.1 and 6, who are the eye witnesses to the incident, have clearly stated the intention of the accused to commit the murder with respect to the land dispute and if the petitioner is granted bail, he may tamper the prosecution witnesses. Hence, Government Pleader prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶27

Upon considering the contention of the learned counsel on both sides and on perusal of the record, admittedly, it goes to show that the complainant is the friend of the deceased who had lodged complaint with the police. When the deceased saw the accused releasing water to his land, the deceased questioned the accused why he was releasing water, at that time, the accused started abusing the complainant in filthy language and took out a weapon stating that he will finish him off and he is stated to have attempted to assault on the neck but it fell on the leg. Then one Mohammad Gazabarsab Multani-CW-6 came and rescued the deceased and they shifted the deceased to the hospital, where he was declared dead. After registering of the case, the police

¶28

¶29

arrested the petitioner and he was taken to custody and the weapon was recovered by the police at the instance of the accused. Postmortem examination report shows that death is due to respiratory failure and secondary to the injury sustained on the leg. Though CW-6 who is an eyewitness to the incident stated that the accused attacked on the neck but, at this stage, it cannot be considered that the accused had any intention or motive to commit of the murder of the deceased and the quarrel took place at the spot when the deceased himself questioned the accused as to why he was releasing water from his(deceased’s) land. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and that the petitioner is in custody for more than seven months and that charge sheet has already been filed and his presence is no more required for custodial interrogation, considering all these aspects, I am of the view that, by imposing certain stringent conditions, if the petitioner is granted bail, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.

¶30

6. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

¶31

¶32

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The committal Court/trial Court is directed to release the petitioner/accused on bail in Crime No.80/2020 registered by the Yamakanamardi Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶34

ii) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶35

iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offence; and

¶36

iv) The petitioner shall take trial without causing any delay.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

kmv

Shri.Gajbarsab Gulabsab Multani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Gajbarsab Gulabsab Multani 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

Laxman S/O Shivaji Solanki Vs the State of Karantaka

Yaradoni Channamma Alias Channamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs.Laxmi W/O Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramakrishna S/O Shankarayan Hegde Vs Mahendra S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde

Ravi Naik S/O Tulaja Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj S/O Kallappa Salahalli Vs the State of Karnataka