Criminal Petition No. 13529 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5260 CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13529 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI RISHI S/O RAMESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/A NO.71, 10TH 'A' CROSS, SHIVA REDDY LAYOUT, NAGANATHAPURA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BANGALORE - 560 100 …PETITIONER Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SMT. KALPANA P V, ADVOCATE) AND:
Legal Reasoning
STATE OF KARNATAKA PARAMPARA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.214/2020 AND S.C.NO.29/2021 FOR THE - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5260 CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024 ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 115 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. This bail petition is filed by accused no.2 and this is a successive bail petition. Earlier, this petitioner approached this Court in crime stage in Crl.P.No.7476/2021 and same was rejected vide order dated 12.01.2022 and subsequently, after filing of charge sheet also filed petition and the same also dismissed. Now, the petitioner again approached this Court on the ground that some of witnesses have been examined and out of that, some of them have supported the case of the prosecution and some of them have not supported the case of the prosecution. The counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner is in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5260 CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024 custody from 4½ years and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have already enlarged on bail. In support of her arguments, relied upon the judgment reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 in the case of SANJAY CHANDRA vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION wherein it is held that gravity of alleged offence, severity of punishment prescribed in law, both parametes ought to be taken into consideration simultaneously. Gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail. Competing factors to be balanced by Court while exercising its discretion. Protection of personal liberty against securing attendance of accused at trial, presumed innocence till a person is convicted. 3. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 2023 SC 2149 in the case of NITISH CHAUHAN vs STATE OF U.P. wherein an observation is made that accused were in custody for nearly two years and four months, case was at stage of trial, two witnesses were examined while 26 more witnesses were proposed to be examined by prosecution, order denying bail is set - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5260 CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024 aside and bail granted subject to conditions as may be stipulated by Trial Court. 4. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of DATARAM SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER wherein discussed that factors and considerations for grant or refusal of bail, need of humane approach while dealing with applications for remanding matter to police or judicial custody, stressed, overcrowding in jails due to non- adherence to basic principles of criminal jurisprudence regarding grant of bail and presumption of innocence, even if grant or refusal of bail is entirely upon discretion of Judge, it must be exercised in a judicious manner and in a humane way as such remanding hampers dignity of accused howsoever poor he might be. 5. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Crl.A.No.2787/2024 dated 03.07.2024 in the case of JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5260 CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024 wherein an observation is made in paragraph 9 that over a period of time, the Trial Courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. 6. The counsel referring these judgments would vehemently contend that the petitioner is entitled or bail. There are 38 witnesses and out of that, 5 witnesses only examined and it takes time and this petitioner is in mental stress and in view of other accused persons who are released were facing ill-health. Hence, this Court has to consider the same. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing of the State would vehemently contend that this Court already considered the matter on merits after filing of charge sheet and there is no any changed circumstances and witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and some of them have supported the case of the prosecution and hence, this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court to appreciate the evidence and evidence to be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5260 CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024 appreciated by the Trial Court and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it discloses that, this Court while considering the earlier bail petition on merits taking into note of the facts and circumstances of the case held that the specific overt act allegation is made against this petitioner that he assaulted the victim on the vital part of head with machete and also taken note of the PM report which discloses that the cause of death is also on account of head injury. When witnesses speak with regard inflicting of injury with machete by this petitioner and there are eye-witnesses to the incident and now, the eye- witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and some of them have supported the case of the prosecution, it is not a case to exercise the discretion in favour of this petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner contend that PW5 has not supported the case of the prosecution and it - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5260 CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024 takes time for consideration of the matter on merits. When eye-witnesses have been examined and some of them have supported the case of the prosecution, the Trial Court has to appreciate the evidence and this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court sitting under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 9. This Court having taken note of the fact that this petitioner is in custody from 4½ years, can direct the Trial Court to expedite the matter and dispose of the same not later than six month from the date of receipt of copy of this order by examining other witnesses in view of the principles of the judgments referred supra having considered the material available on record. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The * criminal petition is dismissed. * Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 12.02.2025 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5260 CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024 The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the counsels are directed to assist the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within a time bound period. Registry is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN