IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7133/2017 BETWEEN:
SMT.NIRMALA.D W/O MANJUNATHA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT No.702, 1ST STAGE, 15TH CROSS SHIVA KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT DAVANAGERE TOWN-577004. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI MOHANKUMAR.D., ADV., A/W SRI PRADEEP.C.S., ADV) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTD BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560001. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA., HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.419/2016 (S.C.NO.5026/2017) OF ATTIBELE P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station in Crime No.419/2016 and now pending in S.C.No.5026/2017 on the file of III Additional District & Sessions Judge at Bengaluru Rural.
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/accused made the submission that there are no eye witnesses to the incident. Looking to the contents of the complaint, it goes to show that there is no mention that anybody has seen the petitioner/accused in committing the murder of the deceased Ranganath. He also made submission that earlier also, the present petitioner approached this Court. There is a direction by this Court in the said bail order to the concerned Sessions Court to frame the charge within two months and then examine the witnesses. The bail petition came to be rejected with a direction that liberty is given to file bail petition only after the examination of CW-20. The counsel made submission that now the charges are framed but since from 9 adjourned dates, the witnesses were not at all examined in the concerned Court. He also submits that the petitioner is a woman having a daughter. By imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition referring to the order of this Court that this Court has already observed that liberty is given to the petitioner to file fresh bail application only after the evidence of CW-20 is recorded and admittedly even according to the petitioner herein, the evidence of CW-20 is not yet recorded. Hence, he prays to reject the bail petition.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, and other materials placed on record.
6. No doubt, the direction was given by this Court that charge is to be framed. But accordingly as submitted, now the charges are framed and the evidence is to be recorded in the matter. It is also observed that the eye witness is none other than the daughter of the petitioner/accused. In view of such observation made by this Court that CW-20 is not yet examined before the Court, the petition is rejected till the examination of CW-20 eye witness, as earlier observed by this Court.
However, the concerned Sessions Court is hereby directed to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the main matter itself within a period of 6 months.
Intimate the concerned Court accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.