IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6381/2019 BETWEEN:
NAYAZULLA @ NAYAZ, S/O MOHAMMED SHAFIULLA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.734, 2ND CROSS, R.R.NAGAR, DR.SHIVRAM, KARANT NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 064.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.75/2017 OF SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 READ WITH SECTION 120-B OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking his release on bail in S.C.No.531/2018 pending on the file of LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 102B of IPC,.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that, on 03.05.2017 at about 10.00 a.m., when the complainant along with his younger son Haleem Ulla Khan had reached the office of his son, his son went to the 1st floor and after 10-15 minutes, two unknown persons came there, parked their bike and asked the complainant that they wanted to speak to his son Haleem and when Haleem Ulla asked them to come to upstairs, they went there. After some time the complainant heard shouts and quarrels from his son’s office thereafter the two persons came down and went away. Immediately the complainant went and saw that his son is suffering with injuries, immediately he shifted his son to Regal Hospital, later to Baptist Hospital and on 11.05.2017 his son succumbed to the injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner – accused submitted that earlier the petitioner – accused has approached this Court thrice but the said applications have been dismissed. Since 04.05.2017, the petitioner - accused is languishing in jail and there is no progress in the case. All 32 witnesses are yet to be examined and accused Nos.3, 5, 6, 8, 9 are already released on bail. On the ground of parity, the present petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is the further submission that by imposing any stringent condition, the petitioner - accused may be enlarged on bail and the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that already thrice the petitioner – accused has approached this Court and this Court by considering the materials on record meticulously on the aspect has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out a case to release him on bail. On these grounds, he pray to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the records.
7. It is not disputed that earlier the petitioner accused has approached this Court and this Court consistently dismissed the bail petitions. Now, the petitioner - accused has come before this Court by contending that he has been apprehended on 04.05.2017 and till then, he is in custody, there is no progress and even the charge has not yet framed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made available the certain copy of the order sheet of the trial Court, which indicates that the case was posted for hearing before charge and at that time, the petitioner – accused No.1 has filed an application and under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. for discharge. In that light, the case has been adjourned for objection and further proceedings. In the meanwhile, accused No.8 absconded and the trial Court has issued NBW against him and surety notice. Thereafter, accused No.2 has filed the bail application and in that context, the case has been adjourned. If all these materials are looked into, it clearly goes to show that there is no progress in the prosecution case and already accused No.8 is absconding and serious allegations are made against the petitioner – accused No.1. Already this Court on considering the merits of the case has dismissed the petitioners earlier filed by the petitioner herein. In that light, the petition is devoid of merits the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
8. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously within an outer limit of one year from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj