IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7831/2017 BETWEEN:
Nataraju S/o Late Krishnamurthy Aged about 28 years Bajanthri Jananga Marasandra Village Madhura Hobli Doddaballapura Taluk-561 203. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Mohan Kumara D, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka By Doddabelavangala Police Station Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.247/2012 of Doddabelavangala P.S., Bangalore, and Spl.C.No.22/2013 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore for the offence P/U/S 302 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (POA) ACT, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.247/2012.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that there are no direct witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that though the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, but there are strong circumstances about which material is collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. He has submitted that two hours before the incident there was a quarrel in the wine shop, wherein the petitioner had assaulted the deceased. Immediately after the incident the petitioner has absconded from the village, so, his conduct is also material in the case. The trial of the case has commenced and one witness has already been examined. Hence, at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
6. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner there are no direct witnesses to the incident and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. But as per the complaint averments, two hours earlier to the alleged incident, the petitioner had assaulted the deceased. The statement of witnesses show that the petitioner had approached the witnesses and was in a panic mood and requested for Rs.3,000/- to go to his village and he left for the village in a hurry. Therefore, prima facie, there is a circumstantial evidence and apart from that, as submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the trial has already commenced and one witness has been examined. Hence, the concerned Court could be directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible.
7. The petition is hereby rejected. The concerned trial Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp