Karnataka High Court
Mehaboob Alias Mahaboobsab vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 October, 2023
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12703
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100424 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MEHABOOB @ MAHABOOBSAB
S/O. HASANSAB BANADA,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. MUNDARAGI-582118,
TQ. MUNDARAGI, DIST. GADAG.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MUNDARAGI POLICE STATION,
TQ. MUNDARAGI, DIST. GADAG,
R/BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT PREMISES,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. MARUTI S/O HULAGAPPA BAJANTRI,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. ATTAINDER,
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI M KANKUPPI
Date: 2023.11.03
R/O. MUNDARAGI-582118,
TQ. MUNDARAGI, DIST. GADAG.
10:56:52 +0530
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ABHISHEK L. KALLED, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 14A(2) OF SC/ST
ACT, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
04.08.2023 IN SPECIAL CASE SC/ST N. 20/2023 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE GADAG
AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT HEREIN ON BAIL IN MUNDARAGI P.S.
CRIME NO. 40/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 302 OF IPC AND
SEC. 3(2)(v), OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 2015.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12703
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The sole accused has filed this appeal praying to set
aside the order dated 04.8.2023 passed in SC/ST
No.20/2023 by the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Gadag, whereunder the bail application of the
appellant/accused sought in respect of Mundargi Police
Station Crime No.40/2023 for the offences under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the
IPC', for short) 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 short), came
to be rejected.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for respondent No.1-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the
appellant/accused had illicit relation with the mother of the
deceased. The deceased, who came to know about the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12703
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2023
said illicit relation of her mother with the accused, had
started objecting the visit of the appellant/accused to her
house and therefore, to eliminate her, the appellant/accused
entered the house of the deceased when she was alone
through the back door and strangulated her with veil and
thereafter the mother of the deceased came to the house
who took the deceased to hospital and the deceased died in
the hospital. Charge sheet has been filed against the
appellant/accused for offences under Section 302 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST Act. The appellant/accused
in is judicial custody and he has filed bail application which
came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is
challenged in this appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/accused would contend that there are no
eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution
is based upon circumstantial evidence. Except the fact that
the appellant has shown the spot, there are no other
circumstances to implicate the accused with the case. With
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12703
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2023
this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail to the
appellant/accused.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for respondent
No.1 would contend that the appellant/accused has
strangulated the deceased with veil as she was coming in
the way of his illicit relationship with the mother of the
deceased. The Doctor, who conducted the postmortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased, has
opined that cause of death is due to asphyxia secondary to
strangulation and smothering. He contends that CW-13-
Basavaraj is a witness who has last seen the
appellant/accused entering the house of the deceased when
she was alone and coming out and immediately, thereafter,
the deceased was found injured on her neck and she died
when she was in the hospital. He further contended that
the appellant/accused has shown the spot and mahazar has
been drawn. The charge sheet material show prima facie
case against the appellant/accused for the offences alleged
against him. Considering the same, the Sessions Court has
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12703
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2023
rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant/accused.
With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
contend that the mother of the deceased has filed the
complaint which came to be registered in UDR No.7/2023
and therefore, there is no delay in filing the complaint. The
appellant/accused is the neighbour of the victim and he had
illicit relation with the mother of the deceased. Charge
sheet material show prima facie case against the
appellant/accused for the offences alleged against him.
With this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has
perused the impugned order and the charge sheet material.
8. The appellant/accused is the neighbor of the
complainant. The deceased is the daughter of the lady with
whom the appellant/accused had illicit relation. As per the
case of the prosecution the appellant/accused entered the
house of the deceased, when she was alone after returning
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12703
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2023
from the School, through back door and strangulated her
with veil and went away. The mother of the deceased after
returning from her work saw the deceased in an injured
condition and took the deceased to the hospital where the
deceased died. The Doctor who conducted postmortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased, has
opined that, cause of death appears to be asphyxia
secondary to strangulation and smothering. The deceased
was aged 16 years at the time of the incident. CW-13-
Basavaraj is also a neighbor of the deceased and the
accused. The said Basavaraj in his statement has stated
that he knows the appellant/accused and the family
members of Maruti Bhajantri-father of the deceased. He
has stated in his statement that, on 06.03.2023 at about
2:00 pm, Sindhu-the daughter of Maruti Bhajantri went
inside her house and at about 2:30 pm, the
appellant/accused entered the house of the said Maruti
Bhajantri and after half an hour, he came out of the house
and hurriedly went to his house and thereafter at 4:45pm,
the mother of the deceased returned to her house from
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12703
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2023
school and when she cried, he went and saw that deceased
Sindhu was lying on the floor of the house and there was
injury on her neck and she was taken to the hospital where
she died. Apart from that, the appellant/accused has shown
the spot of the incident in the house of the deceased.
9. On considering the above aspects, there is prima
facie case against the appellant/accused for the offences
alleged against him. Considering the same, the learned
Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the bail application of
the appellant/accused. There are no grounds made out for
setting aside the impugned order and to grant bail to the
appellant/accused.
10. In the result, the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
kmv
ct:bck
