Karnataka High Court
Mehaboob Alias Mahaboobsab S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11137
CRL.A No. 100271 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100271 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MEHABOOB ALIAS MAHABOOBSAB
S/O. HASANSAB BANADA,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O:MUNDARAGI - 582118,
TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MUNDARAGI POLICE STATION,
TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG
RPTD BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT PREMISES,
DHARWAD - 580011.
2. MARUTI S/O. HULAGAPPA BAJANTRI,
YASHAVANT AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: ATTAINDER,
NARAYANKAR R/O: MUNDARAGI NEAR BHOOMRADDI SCHOOL,
TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG - 582118.
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENTS
COURT OF (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
KARNATAKA
SRI. NARAGAJ . J. APPANNANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF SC/ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, 1989), SEEKING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.04.2024 IN SPECIAL CASE SC/ST
NO.20/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSION JUDGE, GADAG, (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ENLARGE THE
APPELLANT HEREIN ON BAIL, IN MUNDARAGI P.S. CRIME
NO.40/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 302 OF IPC
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11137
CRL.A No. 100271 of 2024
SECTION 3(2)(v), OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The sole accused has filed this appeal praying to set
aside the order dated 01.04.2024 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
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11137
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 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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11137
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant -
accused would contend that private witnesses are already
examined and only official witnesses are to be examined by
the prosecution. As private witnesses are already examined
there is no threat to private witnesses. The appellant -
accused is in judicial custody since 11.03.2023. C.W.13 is
main witness who has already examined as P.W.3 and he is
not supported the case of the prosecution. With 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 considering the prima facie case,
heinousness of offence and threat to the prosecution
witnesses this Court has dismissed the appeal earlier filed
by this appellant -accused challenging the rejection of his
bail order. There are no new grounds made out for
successive bail petition. Merely because some prosecution
witnesses are examined is not a ground for grant of bail,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11137
remaining official witnesses have to be examined by the
prosecution. With this, she prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
contend that if the appellant -accused is granted bail there
is threat to the mother of the deceased. Charge sheets
materials shows prima facie case against this appellant -
accused for 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. No doubt that prosecution has examined C.W.1 to
13, it is yet to examine other prosecution witnesses. Merely
because private witnesses are examined is not a ground for
grant of bail. C.W.13 who is main witness to the
prosecution has not supported the case of the prosecution is
not a ground for grant of bail. The trial is at fag end.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11137
9. The appellant -accused has not made out
grounds for setting aside the impugned order and grant of
bail.
10. In the result, the following
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and
conclude the matter at earliest.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP
Ct:anb
