Karnataka High Court
Mr. Hussainsab @ Potappa vs State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRL. P. NO. 100007/2018
BETWEEN:
MR. HUSSAINSAB @ POTAPPA,
S/O IMAMSAB MULLA,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCCP: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: CHALLARI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
KOPPAL RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
- RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K UPPAR, GOVT. PLEADER)
THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CRIME
NO. 249/2017 OF KOPPAL RURAL POLICE REGISTERED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 302, 324 R/W SEC.
34 OF IPC & ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
The complainant Sharanavva is the wife of one Hirehanumappa. He had illicit affair with one Devamma who is the wife of Yamanurappa-accused of Myadneri village. Being unable to bear the torture he has eliminated by murdering Hirehanumappa on 01.10.2017 at 2.00 p.m. at the land of one Vishalakshi.
Earlier UDR case was reported in No. 35/2017 u/S 174C of Cr.P.C. since the complaint was lodged stating that the death was caused by some wild animal. Later on 07.11.2017 at 3.30 p.m. the complainant lodged complaint against the accused. Petitioner herein is the accused No.2.
2. Complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner herein and another accused. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accusedNo.2 would submit that no overt acts are attributed against the petitioner herein. The petitioner is said to be in judicial custody from 08.11.2017.
:3:
3. I have considered the earlier version of the animal attack and later claiming that it was a murder. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the complainant and her men are blackmailing the petitioner by taking unfair advantage of the death of Hirehanumappa.
4. The learned Govt. Pleader opposes grant of bail.
5. In the circumstances of the case, I am of the sincere view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. The apprehension of the prosecution can be resolved by imposing conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER Petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No. 249/2017 of Koppal Rural Police registered for the offences punishable u/S 302, 324 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with equal surety for the likesum subject to the following conditions.:4:
1) The petitioner shall not terrorize the witnesses in any manner;
2) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the District without permission from the Court;
3) The petitioner shall mark his attendance before the IO on every 4th Saturday between 10 and 11 AM.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, this order would stand cancelled ipso facto and the petitioner shall be liable for rearrest.
Sd/-
JUDGE bvv