IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9601/2018 BETWEEN :
M.K.Rakshith S/o M.C.Kumar Aged about 22 years Residing at Murukanahalli Village Seelanere Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk Mandya-572 150.
… Petitioner (By Sri Ranganath Reddy R., Advocate for Sri Murthy M.V., Advocate) AND :
The State of Karnataka by K.R.Pet Rural Police Station Represented by Special Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.1/2017 (C.C No.176/2017) of K.R.Pet Rural Police Station, Mandya District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 324, 302, 212, 201 r/w. Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in CC.No.176/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at K.R.Pet arising out of Crime No.1//2017 of K.R.Pet Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 324, 302, 212, 201 r/w.
Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 31.12.2016 at about 12.00 O’clock midnight, the complainant and his friends were warming up in front of fire due to cold near the petty shop of one Nanjappa, which is situated at the Bus Stand of Murukanahally Village on K.R.Pet- Srirangapatna Main Road. At about 11.45 p.m., they heard the sound of quarrel near the Fair Price Shop and when they saw towards the direction, they found that their friend Harish @ Goonda was screaming to save him and came and fell near the petty shop. Somebody pierced his eyes by sharp weapon and blood was oozing. They saw accused Nos.1 and 2 following Harisha. Accused No.1 was holding bloodstained knife in his hand. Accused No.2 held Harisha and accused No.1 stabbed on his chest and back. When the said witnesses tried to prevent the assault, the accused persons fled away from the spot. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.5000/2017. While disposing of the petition on 22.8.2017, this Court directed to get expedited the committal of the case if not yet committed, frame the charge and record the statements of the eye witnesses within three months from the date of committal of the case before the Sessions Court. Till today, petitioner- accused No.1 has not been produced before the trial Court and the evidence has not yet commenced. There is an inordinate delay in examination of the witnesses. Petitioner-accused No.1 is languishing behind the bars. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. In order to substantiate his arguments, he relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India, (Criminal Petition No.509/2017 & connected matter disposed of on 9.3.2017), reported in AIR 2017 SC 1362. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that there is ample material to show that the petitioner-accused No.1 has been involved in a heinous offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This Court after considering the merits of the case, had already come to the conclusion that the petitioner-accused No.1 is entitled to be released on bail and therefore petition filed by him came to be rejected. However, this Court issued the direction to expedite the trial. But because of technical and inevitable constrains the evidence has not yet commenced. The delay in trial is not considered to be a ground to release the petitioner on bail, that too, when he has been involved in a heinous offence of murder. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On going through the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5000/2017, disposed of on 22.8.2017, this Court has come to the conclusion that there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and they have consistently implicated the petitioner and as such the bail petition was rejected. While rejecting the said petition, this Court has observed as under:-
“The Sessions Court is directed to get expedited the committal of the case if not yet committed, frame the charge and record the statements of the eye witnesses within three months from the date of committal of the case before the Sessions Court.”
8. Though this Court has observed that the case has to be committed, charges have to be framed and the statement of eye witnesses has to be recorded, within three months of committal of the case, the reasons are not forthcoming as to for what reasons the said case has not been committed, charge has not been framed and the petitioner-accused No.1 has not been produced. Even it is not forthcoming as to how many cases are pending and whether any application has been forwarded for extension of time in that regard. Be that as it may, in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India (cited supra), at paragraph-11, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. In the instant case, the petitioner-accused No.1 was apprehended on 3.1.2017 and the said delay in committal and other procedure is not considered to be inordinate delay or undue delay and long pendency. Under such circumstances above decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. I feel that this is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail, that too when the active role has been played by him and he has been involved in a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
In the light of discussion held by me, petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
*ck/-
Sd/- JUDGE