SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 42993

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102161/2022

BETWEEN:

ABDUL SALEEM

S/O. ABDUL JABBAR KOTEBAGILU

AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK,

R/O. NEAR IDGA, JANATA COLONY,

CHANDAVAR VILLAGE, TQ. HONNAVAR,

DIST. U.K. KARWAR-581323,

(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(HONNAVAR POLICE STATION,

UK, KARWAR)

R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD-580011

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.,

SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED ON

BAIL IN SC NO.22/2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II

ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT

AND

SESSIONS

JUDGE,

UTTAR

KANNADA, KARWAR, IN CONNECTION WITH HONNAVAR P.S.

CRIME NO.136/2021, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S

2

354(A),

354(D),

302,

509,

504,

506,

201

OF

IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

This petition is filed by the sole accused under

Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as the 8Cr.P.C.9, for brevity)

seeking

bail

in

Honnavar

Police

Station

Crime

No.136/2021 registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 354A, 354D, 302, 509, 504, 506 and 201 of the

Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 8IPC9, for

brevity).

2.

The

case

of

the

prosecution

is

that,

one

Smt.Jabeena, wife of Abutalib Shaikh has filed complaint

stating that the petitioner/accused was misbehaving with

the ladies in the area and he was removing his dress and

was using indecent words to the womenfolk and he was

advised by the people in the area and even her husband

had advised not to behave like that. It is further stated

3

that the accused misbehaved with a lady by name Heena

Kauser by removing his lungi and acted indecently. It is

further stated that, on 03.05.2021 at about 11:00am, the

accused misbehaved with the wife of one Sri.Azaruddin

Alisab

Shaikh

and

acted

indecently,

for

which,

her

husband and Azaruddin called the accused and advised

him not to do so. After moving some distance, they went

in front of the house of the accused person and enquired

him why he has misbehaving with the womenfolk, for

which, the accused started abusing the husband of the

complainant and questioned him as to who he is and

thereafter her husband advising him not to trouble the

womenfolk, at that point of time, he removed a knife,

which was kept in his waist, and assaulted her husband on

his left side of the chest. Her husband fell down and blood

started oozing out. Smt.Heena Kauser, her son Abdul

Rahuf started shouting, at that time, neighbours have

assembled there and gave treatment to him. The accused

ran away from the place of occurrence with the knife. The

husband

of

the

complainant

was

shifted

to

Kumta

4

Government Hospital wherein he was declared dead. The

said complaint came to be registered in Honnavar Police

Station Crime No.136/2021 for the aforesaid offences.

The petitioner came to be arrested on 03.05.2021 and he

is in judicial custody. The police, after investigation filed

charge sheet. The petitioner filed bail application in SC

No.22/2021 and the same came to be rejected by the

learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara

Kannada, Karwar, by order dated 24.12.2021. Therefore,

the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.

3.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4.

It would be the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that, there is discrepancy in the

averments of the complaint and also in the further

statement of the complainant. On looking to the statement

of CW.1-Jabeenabi, it cannot be said that there was any

intention or preparation but the alleged act has taken

5

place in grave and a sudden provocation. It is his further

submission that, as per the postmortem report, there is

only one injury. The petitioner might have caused the said

injury to safeguard himself. As charge sheet is filed, the

petitioner is not required for any custodial interrogation.

With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader

would

contend

that

the

petitioner

was

misbehaving with the ladies in the area. The husband of

the complainant went to advise him and at that time, the

petitioner brought the knife and assaulted with it on the

chest of the deceased-Abutalib Shaikh and caused his

death.

The

Doctor,

who

conducted

postmortem

examination over the dead body of the deceased has

noted a injury and has given final opinion that the said

injury caused his death. There are several eyewitnesses

cited in the charge-sheet, who have specifically stated the

alleged overt act of the petitioner/accused. Charge-sheet

material show prima facie case against the petitioner for

6

the offences alleged against him. If the petitioner is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top