IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4352/2019 BETWEEN:
B. Subramanyam, S/o. Late B. Nadupi Mandadi, Aged about 67 years, R/at Near Bust Stop, Vivekananda Nagar, Srinivasanagar, Bengaluru – 560 050. …Petitioner (By Smt. Lubna H.S., Advocate for Sri. Dilraj Jude Rohith Sequeira, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Gangamanagudi Police Station, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. Rohith B.J., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.52/2015 (S.C.No.742/2015) of Gangammana Gudi Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Cr.No.52/2015 of Gangammana Gudi Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
3. Earlier this Court has rejected the bail petition filed by the petitioner in Crl.P.No. 6888/2015 dated 16.12.2015 on the ground that there are eye witnesses to the incident establishing that the petitioner is stabbed his wife with a knife on 08.03.2015. Taking into consideration the materials collected by the police and on merits this Court has dismissed the petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court, if the trial does not commence within nine months from today.
4. Further, it is seen from the records that the trial has already commenced and the trial Court has examined as many as eight witnesses so far. Therefore, it is not the stage to decide whether the trial Court has appreciated the evidence for the purpose of ascertaining the prima-facie case against the petitioner or not. It is the domain of the trial Court to dispose of the matter by appreciating the evidence.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no changed circumstance whatsoever in order to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. However, as the trial has already been commenced and examined as many as eight witnesses, it is just and necessary to direct the trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-