Dismissed

Basavanni Alias Basu S/O Siddappa Naik, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024CRL.P/102837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a successive bail petition regarding murder charges punishable by death, the High Court dismissed the application. The Court held that heinousness of the offence, threat to witnesses, and lack of new grounds precluded bail, despite prior rejections and the role of some witnesses turning hostile.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail dismissed. No new grounds made out for grant of bail in this successive petition.

Basavanni Alias Basu S/O Siddappa Naik, Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13690 CRL.P No. 102837 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102837 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BASAVANNI ALIAS BASU S/O. SIDDAPPA NAIK, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/LABOURER, R/O: CHAVATI GALLI, MUTTENATTI, BELAGAVI.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY S.P. P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD, THROUGH MALRNARUTI P.S, BELAGAVI.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREAMTH, HCGP)

¶15

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. (U/SEC. 483 OF BNSS,) SEEKING THAT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSD NOS. 03 IN S.C.NO. 52/2021 FOR OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 302, 307, 326, 324, 120B, AND 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED XI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.119/2020 MALAMARUTI P.S. BELAGAVI MAY BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13690 CRL.P No. 102837 of 2024

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This successive petition is filed by accused No.3

¶22

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking bail in Crime No.119/2020 of Malamaruthi Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 120-B and 34 of IPC.

¶23

It is the case of the prosecution that, one Sri. Sherkhand Sayyed Habib Pathan, who is the father of deceased Shaibaz Sherkhan Pathan, has filed the complaint dated 26.10.2020 stating that deceased Shaibaz Sayyed Pathan had told him that he was going to Master Chef Hotel, near Ramdev Hotel, to attend the birthday party of his relative Iliyas Nayeem Mulla and had left home at about 9.00 p.m. on 25.10.2020. It is further stated that, at around 11.30 p.m., the wife of the complainant came crying, saying that they have beaten their son Shaibaz and that he has taken to Civil Hospital. Immediately, he left for Civil Hospital, but before he

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13690 CRL.P No. 102837 of 2024

¶25

could reach the Hospital, his son had died. He saw the body of his deceased son and there were injuries on his back part of head, left elbow, right palm was entirely severed. It is further stated in the complaint that the complainant’s relatives namely Iliyas, Shahid, Mujaid and Arafat etc., were present at the Civil Hospital and on enquiry about the incident, Arafat (CW.11) has narrated the incident as under;

¶26

“ After having dinner at Master Chef Restaurant, I was headed towards Shivabasava Nagar to drop Shaibaz to his friend’s house on my Activa bearing No. KA-22/H-0514. When we were near Sheikh College Gate, a Tata Sumo approaching from behind started honking, to this, Shaibaz told me to let the vehicle pass and I therefore took my vehicle to one side when the Tata Sumo hit us from behind and we fell to the ground. At this point of time, two people got down from the Tata Sumo with swords in their hands and tried to assault Shaibaz. Shaibaz then jumped

¶27

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13690 CRL.P No. 102837 of 2024

¶28

over the divider on to the other road and started running. The people from the Tata Sumo stated chasing him. I stated chasing them to try and save Shaibaz. Shaibaz then entered a house when the Tata Sumo hit me again. I fell to the ground, but started running and jumped a compound of a house and ran near Master Chef Hotel. I saw Iliyas Mulla, Shahid Mulla, Mujahid Talikoti, etc., there. I told them about this incident. All of us then went in search of Shaibaz in the house which he entered calling out his name. By the time we reached there, they had already assaulted Shaibaz. He had a wound on his left elbow and his right palm was cut off from his hand. On asking him about if he knew who the assaulters were he said that they were Laxman Daddi and his men from Muttenhatti. We then took him to the Hospital in ‘108’ ambulance. He was being treated by the Doctor when he died. Their vehicle bore registration No.KA-49/M-0368. The house in which

¶29

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13690 CRL.P No. 102837 of 2024

¶30

Shaibaz ran belonged to the retired D.S.P. Yaligar.”

¶31

It is further alleged in the complaint

¶32

that there was a quarrel between the deceased

¶33

and one Laxman Daddi, about 4-5 years ago,

¶34

which was registered at Kakti Police Station and accused have killed the victim in vengeance of that quarrel. The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 were arrested on 26.10.2020 and they were remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No.311/2021, seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by XI Addl. Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by order dated 24.03.2021. The petitioners earlier had filed Criminal Petition No.101008/2021 along with accused No.4 and the same came to be dismissed by order dated 24.06.2021.

¶35

The petitioner along with accused No.2 earlier had filed Crl.P.No.102331/2021 seeking bail and the same came to be rejected by order dated

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13690 CRL.P No. 102837 of 2024

¶37

21.12.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed bail

¶38

application before the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.711/2023 and the same came to be rejected by order dated 12.07.2023. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

¶40

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondentState.

¶41

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that some of the eye-witnesses have been examined and they have turned hostile. He contended that the petitioner

¶42

is in judicial custody since last four years and he is a student and if he continued in prison, he will come in contact with harden criminal, with this he prayed to allow the petition.

¶43

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that one of the offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the prima

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13690 CRL.P No. 102837 of 2024

¶45

facie case heinousness of the offence threat to the prosecution witnesses, this Court earlier has rejected his bail petitions twice. There are no any grounds for grant of bail in this application. Merely because some of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile is not a ground for grant of bail as the offence alleged is a heinous offence

¶46

and other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, with this she prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel, the Court has perused the charge sheet records and earlier orders.

¶48

Earlier this Court twice has rejected the bail petition of this petitioner considering prima facie case, heinousness of the offence, threat to the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the accused No.1 has been granted bail and therefore, this petitioner/ accused No.3 is entitle for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The parity cannot be extended to this petitioner/ accused No.3, since the role of accused No.1 and role of this petitioner/ accused No.3 are

¶49

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13690 CRL.P No. 102837 of 2024

¶50

different. This petitioner along with accused No.2 has assaulted the deceased and killed him. There is no allegation of assault by accused No.1. Merely because some of the prosecution witnesses namely eye-witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution is not a ground for grant of bail as the offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence. Merely because the petitioner is in judicial custody since four years, is also not a ground for grant of bail as the offence alleged against the petitioner is a heinous offence and the prosecution has to examine other witnesses.

¶51

The petitioner has not made out any new ground for grant of bail in this successive petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶52

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶53

PJ CT:ANB

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Basavanni Alias Basu S/O Siddappa Naik, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basavanni Alias Basu S/O Siddappa Naik, v. 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

Mandarapu Mandhava Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Prabhakar @ Prabhu S/O. Yankappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mandarapu Madhava Rao S/O. Venkatappaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Ganesh S/O. Manigerappa Annigeri Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation

Sri. Prakash S/O Dundappa Valakoti Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Ganesh S/O. Manigerappa Annigeri Vs the Central Bureau of Investigation