Saddam Alias Ladsab S/O Fakrusab ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6157 Kant

                                1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 15 T H DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                             BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100275/2021

   BETWEEN:

   Saddam @ Ladsab
   S/o. Fakrusab Betageri
   Age: 22 years, Occ: Hitachi Operator
   R/o. Nagapur, Tq: Navalgund
   Dist: Dharwad 582 208.
                                                   ...APPELLANT
   (By Sri. S. S. Beturmath, Advocate)


   AND:

   1.     The State of Karnataka
          Through Kalaghatagi P.S.,
          Represented by State Public Prosecutor
          High Court of Karnataka
          Dharwad Bench, Dharwad 580 011.

   2.     Sunil, S/o. Irappa Halemani
          Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture
          R/o.Kittur, Tq: Ramadurga
          Dist: Belagavi.
                                              ....RESPONDENTS

   (By Sri. Ramesh B. Chigari, HCGP for R1;
       R2 - served)
                               ---
                               2




      This criminal appeal is filed under Section 14 of the
Karnataka Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seeking to enlarge the
appellant/accused on Regular bail in connection with
Ramdurg P.S. Crime No.45/2021 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC
and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 363, 376(2)(i)(n) of the IPC R/w.
Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA)
Act and pending on the file of 3rd Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi at Special Case No.150/2021.

      This appeal is coming on for orders, this day, the
court delivered the following:

                          JUDGMENT

The sole accused has filed this appeal

seeking setting aside of the order dated

04.08.2021 passed by the Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, whereunder the

bail petition of the appellant/accused sought in

Ramadurg Police Station Crime No.45/2021,

registered for the offences punishable under

302, 201, 363, 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860 R/w. Sections 4 and 6 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

POCSO Act', for brevity) and Sections 3(2)(v)

of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to

be rejected.

2. The case of the prosecution is that,

respondent No.2 has filed a complaint on

23.03.2021 stating that he received

information that the dead body of a lady is

lying in his land and he immediately went to

the spot and found that the body was lying and

it was in a decaying condition and he filed a

complaint before the Ramdurg Police Station

and on the basis of the same, Crime

No.45/2021 came to be registered for offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the

IPC, against unknown persons. During the

course of investigation, it is revealed that the

name of the deceased was Madhushree and she

belongs to schedule caste and aged about 15

years at the time of incident. Both the

appellant/accused and deceased loved each

other and when it was noticed by the parents

of the deceased, they have instructed the

appellant/accused to give up the said relation.

In spite of that, they had continued loving. On

20.03.2021, the appellant/accused took the

deceased on a motorcycle and visited Mallur,

Rankalakoppa, Kolach, Sureban and went to

the land of one Basayya K. Hiremath, wherein

he had sexual intercourse with the deceased.

At that point of time, the deceased received a

phone call and she was talking in vulgar

language, for that the appellant became angry

and snatched the phone, thrown it into the

bush. The appellant asked her whether she

has got any other boy friend, for that she

shown her arrogance and talks went on, then

the appellant forcibly pulled her and tied her

hand and veil to her neck, forcibly pulled it and

thereby caused the death by strangulation.

The police filed charge sheet against the

appellant/accused for the offences punishable

under Sections 302, 201, 363, 376(2)(i)(n) of

the IPC R/w. Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO

Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Act.

Now the case is pending on the file of the III

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in

Special Case No.150/2021.

The appellant came to be arrested on

30.03.2021 and he has been remanded to

judicial custody. The appellant/accused filed

Crl.Misc. No.690/2021 seeking bail and the

same came to be rejected by the III Addl.

District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by order

dated 04.08.2021. The appellant/accused has

challenged the said order in the present

appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of learned

counsel appearing for the appellant/accused

and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State. In

spite of service of notice, respondent No.2 -

complainant remained absent and

unrepresented.

      4.     Learned            counsel              for         the

appellant/accused          would           contend        that   the

appellant is innocent, has not committed any

offence as alleged and has been falsely

implicated in the case. The deceased went

missing from 20.03.2021, but no missing

complaint came to be filed till 23.03.2021. It

is submission that there is delay in filing the

complaint. It is further submission that there

are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the

case of the prosecution is based on

circumstantial evidence. The dead body of the

deceased has not been identified by anybody,

but the father of the deceased has identified

only on the basis of cloths and ornaments

shown to him. There are no circumstances to

connect the appellant to the alleged crime. As

the charge sheet is filed, the appellant is not

required for custodial interrogation. There are

no criminal antecedents of the appellant.

Without considering these aspects, the learned

Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order

rejecting the bail petition of the

appellant/accused and it requires interference

by this Court. With this he prayed to allow the

appeal.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader has contended that the

offence alleged against the appellant/accused

is a heinous offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life. The circumstances

enumerated in the charge sheet connect the

appellant/accused to the to the alleged crime.

The appellant/accused has made extra judicial

confession over phone before CW25 and extra

judicial confession in person before CW26.

There are other eyewitnesses who have last

seen the deceased and accused together on

20.03.2021. The mobile, dress and other

documents of the deceased have been

recovered at the instance of the

appellant/accused under mahazer. The charge

sheet material show prima facie case against

the appellant for the offences alleged against

him. If the appellant is granted bail, he will

tamper the prosecution witnesses and flee from

justice. Considering all these aspects, the

learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the

bail petition of the appellant/accused, which

does not call for any interference by this Court.

With this he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. Having regard to the submissions

made by the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned High Court Government

Pleader, this Court has gone through the

charge sheet records and the impugned order

passed by the Sessions Court.

7. The accusation leveled against the

appellant/accused is that, he was in love affair

with the deceased, who was aged 15 years as

on the date of incident. On the date of

incident, the appellant and the deceased had

sexual intercourse and thereafter there was

quarrel between them and at that time, the

appellant/accused has strangulated her with

her veil and killed her. There are no

eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire

case of the prosecution is based on

circumstantial evidence. One of the

circumstances is that, the appellant/accused

has made extra judicial confession over phone

before CW25 and in person before CW26.

There are other eyewitnesses, who have seen

the appellant and the deceased together on the

date of incident. As the case of the

prosecution is based on circumstantial

evidence, the prosecution has to establish each

of the evidences at the trial. There are no

criminal antecedents of the appellant. The

appellant is not required for custodial

interrogation. Without considering all these

aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed

the impugned order, which requires

interference by this Court. The main objection

of the prosecution is that, if the

appellant/accused is granted bail, he will

threaten the complainant and other prosecution

witnesses and flee from justice. The said

objection can be met with by imposing

stringent conditions.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and submission of the counsel, this Court

is of the view that there are valid grounds for

setting aside the impugned order and granting

bail to the appellant/accused subject to certain

terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 04.08.2021

passed in Crl.Misc.No.690/2021 by the III

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, is

set aside.

Consequently, the bail application filed by

the appellant/accused under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. stands allowed. The appellant-accused

shall be released on bail in Crime No.45/2021

of Ramadurg Police Station, subject to the

following conditions:

i) The appellant/accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), with one surety for the like

sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

       ii) The    appellant/accused             shall   not
          indulge         in         tampering          the
          prosecution witnesses.

iii) The appellant/accused shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and co- operate in speedy disposal of the case.

SD/-

JUDGE

g ab