IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mrs. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3591 OF 2017 BETWEEN :
Anna Dorai @ Dorai S/o Late Armugam, Aged 30 years, Residing at No.184, ‘B’ Lane, Anjanappa Garden, Cottenpet, Bengaluru-560 053.
(By Sri. Chandrahasa Rai B., Advocate) AND :
State of Karnataka By Cottonpet Police Station, Bengaluru.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.268/2015 of Cottonpet P.S., Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 302 R/W 149 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER The petitioner along with other co-accused is charge sheeted by the respondent – police in their Crime No.268/2015 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 201, 302 R/W Section 149 of IPC.
Nos.1 and 2 conspired along with their friends to finish him off. On the night of 22.07.2015, they barged into the house of the deceased and in the presence of his wife and aunt, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted him with lethal weapons, which resulted in fatal injuries. The victim expired while on treatment in the hospital and on the early hours of 23.07.2015. Accused No.4 disposed of the blood stained clothes of accused Nos.1 to 4 in a gutter and destroyed the evidence, etc.
3. Similarly placed accused No.2 was before this Court in Crl.P.No.3434/2016 and Crl.P.No.5236/2016, both the petitions were rejected on merit vide order dated 06.06.2016 and 11.08.2016, respectively.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that so far charge is not framed by the Sessions Court, though a direction was given by this Court in the aforesaid petition to expedite the trial. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Vinod Bhandari Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015 (1) Crimes 160 (SC) observed that if the trial is not completed in one year, the appellant (therein) was at liberty to apply for fresh bail.
5. Learned HCGP submits that, delay by itself cannot be urged as a ground for bail. The petitioner seeks parity with the accused, who are granted bail by this Court and Sessions Court, but he stands on the same pedestal with that of accused Nos.1 and 2, who are denied bail by this Court and also by the Sessions Court.
6. In the light of the submission, perused the order sheet maintained by the Sessions Court pertaining to the period from 02.12.2016 to 02.08.2017. It is noticed that after Sessions Court heard on framing of charge, posted the case for framing of charge. Accused Nos.1 to 3 were not produced from judicial custody. Every time the Court issued direction to the Jail Authorities to produce them on the next date of hearing. Prior to that also, there was delay for one or the other reason. Initially, it appears that sufficient time was spent to dispose of the bail applications and during the stage of ‘hearing before charge’ also, on 20.03.2017 these petitioners were produced through video conference and for non-availability of their counsel, the case was adjourned. However, on 15.04.2017, learned counsel submitted no objection to frame charge and thereafter, the Sessions Court has observed that these petitioners are not produced from Judicial Custody.
7. It has come to the notice of this Court that off late there is tendency that whenever the accused is not produced from Judicial Custody, the Courts as a ritual issue notice to the Jail Authorities to produce them on the next date of hearing and these directions go in vain without response from the Jail Authorities. That prompts this Court to remind that vide High Court Circular No.LCA I/478/93 in General Circular No.11/1993 dated 21.07.1993, the Presiding Officer of the subordinate Courts in the State are directed to address the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police (presently Police Inspector) for production of under trial persons before the Court for trial. The trial Court shall issue specific direction to the Police Inspector/Investigating Officer to produce the accused on all the hearing dates regularly. It is not as if the Courts are helpless when the accused is not produced.
They have every authority under the statute to take action against the Public Officer, who does not obey the order of the Court. The petitioner’s case since stands on the same pedestal with that of accused No.2 whose bail application is already rejected, this petition is also rejected.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
Learned counsel for petitioner is requested to communicate this order to the concerned Court so that the Court can seek effective steps to make progress in the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC