Karnataka High Court
Saddam Alias Ladsab S/O. Fakrusab ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7232
CRL.A No. 100303 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100303 OF 2025
(U/S 14 A(2) of SC and ST ACT)
BETWEEN:
SADDAM @ LADSAB S/O. FAKRUSAB BETAGERI
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HITACHI OPERATOR,
R/O. NAGANUR, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD-582208.
- APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.S.BETURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RAMDURGA P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. SUNIL S/O. IRAPPA HALAMANI,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KITTUR,
TQ: RAMADURG, DIST: BELAGAVI-591127.
- RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed (BY SRI. ASHOK KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1;
by VINAYAKA B
V NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2)
DHARWAD
BENCH
OF KARNATAKA SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO ENLARGE
Date: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON REGULAR BAIL IN RAMDURG P.S. CRIME
2025.05.29
10:07:05 +0530 NO. 45/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 302 AND 201 OF IPC AND CHARGE SHEETED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 363,
376(2)(i)(n) OF IPC R/W. SECTIONS 4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT AND
3(2)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT IN SPECIAL CASE NO.150/2021
PENDING ON THE FILE OF 3RD ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BELAGAVI & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7232
CRL.A No. 100303 of 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed seeking to set aside the
order dated 05.05.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 522/2025
by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1,
Belagavi and to release the appellant/accused on regular
bail in Ramdurg P.S. Crime No. 45/2021 registered and
chargesheeted for the offences punishable u/S 302, 201,
363, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC r/w Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO Act
and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act in Special Case No.
150/2021 pending on the file of 3rd Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/
accused and the learned AGA.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits
that against the appellant/accused a chargesheet is filed
by Ramdurg Police in Crime No. 45/2021 for the alleged
offences and he was released on bail by this Court in
Crl.A.No. 100275/2021 vide order dated 15.12.2021.
However the trial Court has issued non bailable warrant
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7232
and secured his presence in view of the fact that he was
absent during the proceedings before the trial Court. It is
submitted that the accused has moved an application for
recalling the non bailable warrant and grant of bail, the
same was rejected. Hence he has filed separate
application u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. for releasing him on bail. It
is submitted that the appellant-accused is ready for
abiding any conditions to be imposed while granting bail.
4. It is also submitted that insofar as consideration of
bail, this Court has already applied its mind and passed a
detailed order on 15.12.2021 in Crl. A. No. 100275/2021
by imposing certain conditions. Now the Sessions Court
merely on the ground that the accused was absent on
some occasions, has proceeded to reject the application
for grant of bail and sent the accused into judicial custody.
It is submitted that absence of the accused before the trial
Court was at the initial stage of the trial and his absence
was for compelling reasons explained in the application.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7232
Hence he seeks to allow the appeal and to set aside the
impugned order.
5. Per contra, learned AGA for the respondent-State
submits that this Court in Crl. A. No. 100275/2021
enlarged the appellant-accused on bail, however he
violated the conditions of bail, the accused remained
absent before the trial Court which is nothing but
protracting the proceedings. Considering this aspect, the
trial Court has rightly rejected the application. Hence he
seeks to dismiss the petition.
6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record.
7. It is not in dispute that this Court in Crl. A. No.
100275/2021 vide order dated 15.12.2021 released the
appellant/accused on bail with the following conditions.
(1) 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;
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7232
(2) The appellant/ accused shall not indulge in
tampering the prosecution witnesses;
(3) The appellant/ accused shall attend the Court
on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and
Co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
8. The order sheet of the trial Court indicates that the
accused has appeared on some occasions and thereafter
he remained absent and due to his absence the
proceedings were protracted. The trial Court taking note
of his absence on various occasions has come to the
conclusion that the appellant has misused the bail granted
to him and protracted the proceedings. In my opinion the
approach of the trial Court is erroneous as already this
Court has applied its mind and vide order dated
15.12.2021 enlarged the accused on bail. Absence of the
accused though may not be for justifiable reasons, cannot
be the ground to keep the accused in custody that too
when this Court by applying its mind has released the
accused on bail. Keeping in mind the order dated
15.12.2021 passed in Crl. A. No. 100275/2021 the
impugned order is required to be set aside. I have also
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7232
noticed that absence of accused is at pre-trial stage, as
trial Court has posted matter for framing of charges. I am
of the considered opinion that appeal deserves to be
allowed with conditions.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant also undertakes
that the accused would be present before the trial Court
on all dates and he shall co-operate for early disposal of
the case. The said submission is based on the instructions
of the accused, which is placed on record.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following order.
ORDER
Criminal Appeal is allowed. Order dated 05.05.2025
passed in Crl. Misc. No. 522/2025 by the learned Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Belagavi, is set aside.
Consequently, the appellant/accused is enlarged on
regular bail in Ramdurg P.S. Crime No. 45/2021 registered
and chargesheeted for the offences punishable u/S 302,
201, 363, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC r/w Sec. 4 and 6 of POCSO
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7232
Act and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act in Special Case No.
150/2021 pending on the file of 3rd Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Belagavi, subject to the following
conditions.
(1) The appellant/ accused shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like sum to
the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
(2) The appellant/ accused shall not indulge in
tampering the prosecution witnesses;
(3) The appellant/ accused shall attend the Court
on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and
Co-operate in speedy disposal of the case;
(4) The appellant/accused shall appear before the
trial Court on all the given dates without fail
unless exempted by the Court. The trial Court
shall consider the exemption application only in
genuine reasons and not routinely;
(5) The trial Court is requested to conclude the trial
as early as possible.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
BVV
Ct:vh
