Allowed

Shri Rajesab S/O Hanif Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2024CRL.P/100332/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition by accused No.1 in a murder and conspiracy case. The court found the sole eyewitness's conduct doubtful, noted no other direct evidence, no criminal antecedents, completed investigation, and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in S.C.No.131/2023 on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions on appearance and witness protection.

Shri Rajesab S/O Hanif Mulla Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:3590 CRL.P No. 100332 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100332 OF 2024 (439)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI RAJESAB S/O. HANIF MULLA, AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. CENTERING WORK, R/O. VINAYAK NAGAR, MARIHAL, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI-591103.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI S. M. MUCHHANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶14

Date: 2024.02.17 11:37:45 +0530

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE POLICE INSPECTOR MARIHAL POLICE STATION, DIST. BELAGAVI-591103 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA , AT. DHARWAD BENCH-580011

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI T. P. MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO THAT THE PETITION FILED BY THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 MAY BE ALLOWED AND THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 MAY BE ENLARGED ON BAIL BY IMPOSING REASONABLE CONDITIONS IN MARIHAL P.S. CRIME NO.80/2023 U/S 120(B), 302 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING TRAIL IN S.C. NO.131/2023 ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI.

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3590 CRL.P No. 100332 of 2024

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Accused No.1 in S.C.No.131/2023 pending

¶21

before the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi arising out of Crime No.80/2023 registered by Marihal Police Station, Belagavi District for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC is before this Court under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

FIR in Crime No.80/2023 was registered by

¶24

Marihal Police Station, District Belagavi against petitioner and another for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of complaint lodged by Sri Santosh Karalingannavar on 19.05.2023. In the said complaint, it is averred that complainant was informed on 19.05.2023 at about 6.45 a.m. by Basanagouda Irappa Patil who is from his village

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3590 CRL.P No. 100332 of 2024

¶26

that on night of 18.05.2023, petitioner-Rajesab Hanif Mulla and his friend Akshaykumar Nagappa Konakeri had assaulted and murdered complainant’s brother-Mahantesh infront of the school in their village. Complainant immediately went to the spot and after seeing the dead body of his brother-Mahantesh had approached the Police

¶27

and lodged the complaint at about 8.30 a.m. which had resulted in registering Crime No.80/2023 against the petitioner and Akshaykumar Nagappa Konakeri.

¶28

During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 19.05.2023. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet is filed. Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge sheet. Bail application filed by him before the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1463/2023 was rejected on 16.12.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner after

¶30

reiterating the grounds urged in the petition submits that

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3590 CRL.P No. 100332 of 2024

¶32

the conduct of CW-10, the alleged eyewitness to the incident, raises a serious doubt as to whether he had really witnessed the murder. He submits that earlier there was an attempt to murder the deceased and in the said case, the accused persons were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of IPC. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents. He is aged about 23 years. Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶33

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has opposed the petition.

¶34

Complaint was lodged by Sri Santosh Karalingannavar after he was informed by Sri Basanagouda Irappa Patil (CW-10) at about 6.45 a.m. on 19.05.2023, that on the night of 18.05.2023 at about 9.30 p.m. accused Nos.1 and 2 had assaulted Mahantesh the brother of complainant and had committed his murder. As

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3590 CRL.P No. 100332 of 2024

¶36

per the charge sheet allegations, accused Nos.1 and 2 had conspired to murder Mahantesh, who is brother of complainant and on 18.05.2023 at about 9.30 p.m. when Mahantesh was sitting along with CW-10 near the school in their village, accused Nos.1 and 2 who came there in the motorbike of accused No.3, had assaulted Mahantesh with Talavar and had committed his murder. CW-10 who was with Mahantesh, when accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted him, allegedly ran away from the spot and witnessed the crime from a distance. CW-10 who is alleged to be a close friend of Mahantesh, thereafter, had gone to the house and slept. He had neither gone to the Police Station nor had he gone to the house of complainant to inform about the incident. It is only on the next day at about 6.45 a.m., he had allegedly informed the complainant about the incident that had taken place on the previous night.

¶37

The material on record would also go to show

¶38

that there was an attempt to murder deceased-Mahantesh in the year 2016 and the accused in the said case were

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3590 CRL.P No. 100332 of 2024

¶40

tried before the jurisdictional Court in Sessions Case No.377/2017 and they were acquitted for the offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of IPC, by the judgment and order dated 05.12.2018.

¶41

Except the statement of CW-10, there is no other evidence which connects the petitioner directly to the crime. The conduct of CW-10 makes the statement of the said witness prima facie doubtful. Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is in custody from 19.05.2023. He is aged about 23 years. Investigation in the case is completed. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail is required to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused No.1 is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.131/2023 pending before the Court of XI Additional District and

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:3590 CRL.P No. 100332 of 2024

¶45

Sessions Judge, Belagavi arising out of Crime No.80/2023 registered by Marihal Police Station, Belagavi District for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

i. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with 2 sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶47

ii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

¶48

iii. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶49

iv. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

¶50

CKK CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

Shri Rajesab S/O Hanif Mulla v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rajesab S/O Hanif Mulla 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

Shri. Suresh Rangappa Yadhalli, Vs Shreshta Developers

Shri. Kallappa S/O Gangappa Tapali Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Balappa Basavant Gudagenatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nitin Chandrakant Shet Vs Sri Mahantesh Tukaram Kalal

Rajendra S/O Gautam Bailur Vs State of Karnataka

Navalu Babu Yedage Vs the State of Karnataka