IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8662/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Rangaswamy @ Ranga Aged about 28 years S/o Ramakrishnappa R/at Rangaswamy Provision Store 13th Cross, Near Mullakatamma Temple Mayura Nagara Andrahalli Main Road Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru-560 058.
2. R Shankar Aged about 28 years S/o Ramaiah R/at No.106 2nd Cross, 1st Main Sanjeevini Nagar Hegganahalli Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru-560 058.
3. Raghavendra @ Raghu Aged about 28 years S/o Jayaram R/at No.38 Om Shakthi Temple Road Hegganahalli Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru-560 058. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri H C Shivaramu, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka SHO by Chamarajpet Police Station Represented by Ashok N Naik Special Public Prosecutor Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Ashok N Naik, Spl.P.P.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.238/2012 of Chamarajpet P.S., Bangalore, for the offences P/U/Ss 120-B, 109, 143, 147, 148, 150, 506-B, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 109, 143, 147, 148, 150, 506B, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.238/2012, now pending in S.C.No.428/2013 on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH 59) at Bengaluru.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that since five years the petitioners are in custody. Out of 137 charge sheet witnesses now 50 witnesses have been already examined including the alleged eyewitnesses. The witnesses examined before the Court who are said to be the eyewitnesses to the incident have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. More than 70 witnesses are yet to be examined in the case, which will take long time. When the material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, there is no reason to keep the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in custody. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners may be admitted to regular bail.
4. Per-contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that in this case good number of witnesses have given their statement during the course of investigation and since it is a case of brutal murder, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court is monitoring the trial proceedings in the case. In W.P.No.47342/2012, the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 11.10.2017 has given six months time for completion of trial proceedings and the said period will expire in the month of March 2018. The other important witnesses like Doctor, Investigation Officer, the witnesses who gave their statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and the witnesses who identified the accused persons in the test identification parade are yet to be examined in the case. Therefore, at this stage, only on the basis that some of the witnesses have turned hostile, the petitioners cannot be granted with bail. Hence, learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition and submitted to reject the same.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, entire charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners along with the petition.
6. No doubt, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Article 21 of the Constitution regarding life and liberty, speedy trial of the case is a fundamental right and the accused persons have got every right to seek for speedy disposal of the case. But looking to the magnitude of the case and the number of witnesses examined during investigation, this aspect has been already considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in writ proceedings and time has been already granted to complete the trial proceedings by its order dated 11.10.2017, which period has not expired as of now. It may be the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners were not heard in the matter in the writ proceedings. However, if there is any such grievance, it is for the petitioners to move the concerned Hon’ble Division Bench. But when other important witnesses, as submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, are yet to be examined before the Court, only on the basis of the witnesses examined till now, the learned Sessions Judge may not be in a position to take decision in the matter. The learned Sessions Judge can come to a definite conclusion regarding the guilt or innocence of the petitioners and other accused persons only after conclusion of trial and after examining other important material witnesses in the case.
7. In view of the above facts and as the Hon’ble Divison Bench of this Court is monitoring the trial proceedings, I am of the opinion that petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.
Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp