Altaf S/O Murtusab Kerur vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6322 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 17 T H DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
                           BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100351 OF 2021

   BETWEEN:

   ALTAF S/O. MURTUJASAB KERUR
   AGE: 19 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
   R/O: GUDUR, HUNUGUND TQ.,
   BAGALKOT DIST.-587202.
                                             ...A PPELLANT

   (BY SRI J . BASAVA RAJ, ADV .)

   AND:

   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   (THROUGH AMENGAD P.S. BAGALKOT DIST.)
   REPRESENTED BY ITS
   STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
   AT DHARWAD - 580011.

   2.    SRI. YAMANUR
   S/O. RAMANNA BHAJANTRI,
   AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
   R/O: GANGANAGAR, GUNDUR,
   HUNUGUND TQ., BAGALKOT DIST.-587202.
                                          ... RES PONDENTS

   (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP FOR R1
    R2- IS PRES ENT)
                           2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A (2) OF
THE SCHED ULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989 AND U/S 439
OF CR.P.C. S EEK ING TO ALLOW T HIS APPEAL, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2021 PASSED BY THE
II ADDITIONAL D ISTRICT AND SES SIONS JUDGE, AT
BAGALKOT IN S PL. C. NO.107/2021 (REGISTERED IN
CRIME NO.93/ 2021 BY AMENGAD P.S ., BAGALK OT
DIST.) UNDER SECTION 302 READ WITH 34 OF IPC
AND UNDER SECTION 3(2) ( v) OF SC/ST ACT AND
ENLARGE THE A PPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 ON REGULAR
BAIL PENDING TRIA OF THE CASE.

    THIS   CRIMINAL      APPEAL COMI NG ON         F OR
ORDERS, THIS DAY,       THE COURT DELIVERED        THE
FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

Accused No.1 has filed this appeal challenging

the order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the learned II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in

Special Case No.107/2021, whereunder the bail

application filed by the appellant in Crime No.93/2021

of Amengad Police Station registered for the offence

punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for

brevity) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes

and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SC & ST

Act', for brevity) came to be rejected.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Sri.

Yamanur of Gudur village filed complaint stating that

he along with his brother Hanamanth (deceased) were

living in the village by doing coolie work. The

deceased-Hanamanth and Jagadish are friends. The

appellant/accused No.1 fell in love with one Jyothi,

who is the sister of Jagadish since two years, the said

Jyothi was given in marriage with another person

about 3 to 4 months prior to the alleged incident, but

the appellant had continued intimacy with her.

Jagadish, Hanamanth and others convened a

panchayath and it was advised the appellant not to

move with Jyothi, despite of advises he had continued

intimacy with her. The deceased-Hanamanth used to

warn the appellant/accused No.1 not to move with

Jyothi as she is a married woman so the appellant was

angry with the deceased-Hanamanth. On 27.08.2021

Jyothi had come to Gundur village and the

appellant/accused No.1 was moving around in front of

her house and after seeing the same, the deceased-

Hanamanth advised and sent the appellant back. At

about 10.00 p.m., the deceased informed the

complainant that he was going to attend a dinner

along with his friends Hanamanth S/o. Kariyappa

Madar (accused No.2) and Muttanna S/o. Huchchappa

Holageri (CW-11), but he did not return home. That

on 28.08.2021 at 6.00 a.m., the complainant came to

know that his brother's dead body was lying near

Indian Oil Petrol pump and he immediately went to

the spot and saw the dead body with stab injuries on

the back of neck and one broken handle of knife was

lying near the dead body. As per the statement of the

complainant that, he made enquiry with one Muttanna

who allegedly accompanied the deceased for dinner

and Muttanna informed the complainant that on

27.08.2021 himself, the deceased and Hanamant

Kariayappa Madar (accused No.2) went on a motor

cycle, near Vadageri cross, Hanamant (accused No.2)

told the deceased that he would summon Altaf to

advise one more time and on summoning, the

appellant/accused No.1 came to the spot and after

advise of Hanamant requested the deceased to drop

the appellant/accused No.1 and both the deceased

and the appellant/accused No.1 went on motor cycle.

Thereafter, the deceased-Hanamant did not return

and he suspected both accused Nos.1 and 2 hatched a

plan and on the way the accused No.1 committed the

murder of deceased-Hanamanth. A case came to be

registered in Crime No. 93/2021 for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read

with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC and

ST Act. The charge sheet has been filed against the

appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and

Sections 3(2)(v) of SC and ST Act. The

appellant/accused No.1 came to be arrested on

29.08.2021 and remanded to judicial custody. The

appellant/accused No.1 has filed bail application in

Special Case No.107/2021 and the same came to be

rejected by the learned II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Bagalkot by order dated 27.11.2021.

The appellant has challenged the said order in the

present appeal.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for appellant/accused No.1 and learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent

No.1-State.

The respondent No.2, who is physically present

in the Court, prays not to grant bail to the

appellant/accused No.1.

4. The learned counsel for the

appellant/accused No.1 would contend that the there

are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case of the

prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The

circumstances enumerated in the charge sheet did not

connect the appellant to the alleged crime. There is

no animosity between the appellant/accused No.1 and

the deceased-Hanamanth. Jyothi, who is stated to

have illicit relationship with the appellant/accused

No.1 has not been cited as a witness. Accused No.2

has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Court

and therefore the appellant/accused No.1 is entitled

for grant of bail on the ground of parity. As the

charge sheet is filed, the appellant is not required for

custodial interrogation. Without considering all these

aspects, the learned Session Judge has rejected the

bail application of the appellant, which requires

interference by this Court. With this, he prayed to

allow the appeal.

       5.   Per    contra,   the     learned    High     Court

Government        Pleader    has    contended     that     the

appellant/accused No.1 who continued his intimacy

with Jyothi, who is the sister of CW-10 even after her

marriage and therefore the deceased-Hanamanth had

advised him on 27.08.2021. CW-11 has last seen the

deceased and the appellant/accused No.1 going on

motorcycle on 27.08.2021 at 12.15 midnight. The

doctor who conducted post mortem examination has

noted three stab injuries. The broken handle of knife

has been recovered on the spot under mahazar.

Remaining portion of the knife has been recovered at

the instance of the appellant/accused No.1 along with

his blood stained clothes under mahazar. The

voluntary statement of appellant/accused No.1

corroborated by the circumstances and connects the

appellant to the alleged crime. The charge sheet

material shows prima facie case against the appellant

for the offences alleged against him. One of the

offence alleged is punishable with death or

imprisonment for life. If the appellant is released on

bail, he will threaten the complainant and other

prosecution witnesses. Considering all these aspects

the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the

bail application and the order does not require any

interference by this Court. With this, he prayed for

dismiss the appeal.

6. Having regard to the submission made by

the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State, this Court has gone through

the charge sheet records and the impugned order.

7. The accusation leveled against the

appellant/accused No.1 is that, he was in love affair

with Jyothi, who is the sister of CW-10 and even after

her marriage with some other person, he did not stop

his intimacy with Jyothi and therefore the deceased-

Hanamanth advised the appellant/accused No.1 to

discontinue the same and therefore being angry with

the said advise, the appellant/accused No.1 in

collusion with accused No.2 hatched a plan to finish

the deceased-Hanamanth and in the guise of advising,

accused No.2 secured the appellant/accused No.1

wherein he made drama of advising the accused No.1

and thereafter sent accused No.1 on the motorcycle of

the deceased and on the way the appellant/accused

No.1 stabbed the deceased with knife on his neck,

shoulder and other parts of the body. CW-10 is a

witness, who has stated regarding deceased advising

accused No.1 on 27.08.2021. CW-11 has last seen

the appellant, deceased and accused No.2 going on

the motorcycle of the deceased on 27.08.2021 at

12.15 midnight. The dead body of the deceased was

found at 6.00 a.m. on 28.08.2021 and broken handle

of knife was lying near the dead body and the same

has been seized under spot mahazar. The remaining

portion of the knife along with the blood stained

clothes has been recovered at the instance of the

appellant/accused No.1 under mahazar. All these

circumstances corroborated with the voluntary

statement of the appellant/accused No.1. The doctor

who conducted post mortem examination has noted

three stab injuries and opined that cause of death is

due to hemorrhage and hypovolemic shock secondary

to severe injuries sustained over chest and head

injury caused by long and sharp metallic weapon.

8. On looking to the entire charge sheet

materials, there is no prima facie case against the

appellant/accused No.1. If the appellant/accused

No.1 is granted bail, there are chances of threatening

the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.

Considering all these aspects, the learned Session

Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of the

appellant/accused No.1 which does not call for any

interference by this Court. There are no grounds to

interfere with the order passed by the learned

Sessions Judge.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

S MM