Allowed

Fakrusab S/O. Ismailsab Killedar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2024CRL.P/101484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.1 in a murder conspiracy case sought regular bail after trial-court rejection. Prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence; petitioner's specific role was not stated in chargesheet and he had no criminal antecedents. Court granted bail with bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties; attend trial regularly; not tamper with witnesses; not commit similar offences.

Fakrusab S/O. Ismailsab Killedar Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:160 CRL.P No. 101484 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101484 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

FAKRUSAB S/O. ISMAILSAB KILLEDAR AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. HOUSE NO.304, LAXMI HIGHTS APARTMENT, KCC BANK COLONY, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAXMIM BHAT VIJAYALAXMIM BHATDate: 2024.01.05 14:54:43 +0530

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH APMC, NAVANAGAR, P.S.,HUBBALLI, NOW R/BY S P P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶14

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF THE CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH APMC NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI P.S. CRIME NO. 51/2022, WHICH IS REGISTERED UNDER SECTIONS 120-B, 109, 201, 202, 302, R/W. SECTION 149 OF THE IPC, ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI IN S.C.NO. 5092/2019.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:160 CRL.P No. 101484 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Accused No.1 in S.C.No.5092/2022 pending before

¶22

the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) arising out of a Crime No.51/2022 registered by APMC Navanagar police station, Hubballi, Dharwad for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 201, 202, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶23

1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) is before this Court seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’).

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.51/2022 was registered by

¶26

APMC Navanagar Police initially for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against unknown persons on the complaint filed by Smt. Khatunabi, wife of the deceased Ismailsab. During the course of investigation of

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:160 CRL.P No. 101484 of 2023

¶28

the case, the petitioner herein was arrested on 30.06.2022. Investigation in the case is complete and chargesheet is filed totally against six accused persons. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 in the chargesheet. His bail application filed before the trial Court in S.C.No.5092/2022 was rejected on 29.12.2022. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having reiterating the grounds of the petition submits that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, petitioner is in custody for the last more than 18 months and the trial in the case is yet to commence, accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra , learned HCGP has opposed the bail application. She submits that there is sufficient material to connect the petitioner to the crime. CWs. 26 and 27 have overheard the conversation between the accused persons when they were conspiring to murder Ismailsab who is none other than the father of the petitioner herein. She

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:160 CRL.P No. 101484 of 2023

¶32

further submits that the petition filed by accused No.3 has been dismissed by this Court. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶33

On perusal of the material made available to

¶34

the Court, it is seen that FIR in Crime No.51/2022 was registered by APMC Navanagar Police against unknown persons for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC on the complaint filed by Smt. Khatunabi, who is the second wife of the deceased Ismailsab. The petitioner is the son of the deceased Ismailsab from his first wife. Allegation in the chargesheet against the petitioner is that, since the deceased who is the father of the petitioner had neglected the children born to his first wife after he married the complainant-second wife, the petitioner had an ill-will against the deceased. The deceased was a Reserve Police Constable and the petitioner apprehended that, after the retirement of the deceased, all his service benefits would be given only to his second wife and the children born to her and in this background, he had

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:160 CRL.P No. 101484 of 2023

¶36

conspired with accused No.5 who is his sister and other accused persons to murder Ismailsab. In furtherance of the conspiracy, accused Nos.1 to 4, on 28.06.2022 allegedly took Ismailsab along with them to an isolated place and it is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 4 had held the hands and legs of Ismailsab and accused No.3 after wearing hand gloves had strangulated the neck of Ismailsab with a rope made of jute and had murdered him. Thereafter, the accused persons had shifted the dead body of the deceased and disposed off the same near the compound wall of Karnataka Law University at Navanagar in Hubballi.

¶37

The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. CWs.26 and 27 are said to be the employees of the Bar and Restaurant wherein, the accused Nos.1 to 4 allegedly had conspired to murder the deceased Ismailsab and it is alleged that CWs.26 and 27 had overheard the conversation between the accused persons.

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:160 CRL.P No. 101484 of 2023

¶39

CWs.28 and 29 are said to be the owners of two

¶40

wheeler and auto rickshaw which allegedly was used by the accused persons on the date of committing the crime. Except the statements of CWs.26 to 29, there is no other substantive piece of evidence at this stage to connect the petitioner to the crime. The allegation of strangulating the deceased with the rope is as against accused No.3. The specific role of the petitioner is not spoken to in the charge sheet. The allegations in the charge against the accused is required to be proved in the full pledged trial.

¶41

Undisputedly, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is in custody for the last eighteen months. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the prayer made by the petitioner in the application for regular bail, is required to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, the following:

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC-D:160 CRL.P No. 101484 of 2023

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.5092/2022 pending before the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi arising out of a Crime No.51/2022 registered by APMC Navanagar police station, Hubballi, Dharwad for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 109, 201, 202, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction the trial Court.

¶48

ii. The petitioner shall attend Trial Court regularly on all dates of hearing unless his appearance is exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶49

iii. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC-D:160 CRL.P No. 101484 of 2023

¶51

¶52

iv. The petitioner shall not involve in similar

¶53

offences in future.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

RH - upto para 8; VMB – from para 9 till end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Fakrusab S/O. Ismailsab Killedar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fakrusab S/O. Ismailsab Killedar 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

Iranna S/O Umesh Anthakkanavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Arbaz Irfan Hanchinal S/O Irfan Hanchinal Vs the State of Karnataka

Patan Dadakhalandar Vs the State of Karnataka

B Radhakrishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Baburao Govindrao Bongale Vs the Sankeshwar Souhard Credit Sahakari Niyamit

Smt.Indira Anandaraj W/O Late Anandaraj Vs Smt.Lakshmidevi @ Laxmidevi W/O Pampendra Swamy