IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5695/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri.Jayanth, S/o.Basavaraj, Aged about 20 years, R/at No.28, 1st Cross, 1st Main, Mahadeshwara Nagara, Herohalli, Vishwaneedam Post, Bengaluru-560 091. ...Petitioner (By Sri.Arun.A.Gadag, Adv., for Sri.K.Shridhara, Adv.,) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Jnanabharathi Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Ambedkar Beedi, Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Smt.Namitha Mahesh.B.G, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.184/2017 of Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences p/u/ss 120B, 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 119 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.184/2017 (S.C. No.1497/2018) of Jnanabharathi1 Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the sister of the deceased is the complainant, who stated in her complaint that deceased-Arjun was her brother, he was a rowdy element and there were many criminal cases against him. He had been to jail and he was also moving along with criminals. The further averments shows that on the date of alleged incident, she received a phone call from one Ravi, who is her relative stating that her brother-Arjun was assaulted and murdered, immediately she went to the said spot. In the compliant she has mentioned that out of earlier enmity, Joseph (Accused No.1) and his friends called the deceased over phone and assaulted with deadly weapons and committed his murder. On the basis of the complaint, FIR came to be registered against Joseph/accused No.1 and two others, whose names were not motioned in the FIR, but subsequently, petitioner/Jayanth has been arrayed as accused No.2.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the statement of the eye-witness Hanumantha and other witnesses have not specifically stated any overt-acts against the petitioner/accused No.2. It is further submitted that the statement of CW.13 – Hanumanth, has been recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. subsequently, he has been examined under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. that there are contradictory statement given by him. In the statement of Section 164 of Cr.P.C., no specific overt-acts have been stated against the petitioner/accused No.2 and has only stated that they were standing by the side of the place of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that there is no consistency in the statement of the eye- witness. Further it is submitted that already the charge sheet has been filed and this Court while disposing the bail petition in Crl.P. No.818/2018 dated 17.02.2018, directed the trial Court to take up the matter on priority basis and dispose of the same as early as possible. But till today, no charge has been framed and no further proceedings have been taken place in the said case. It is further submitted that there are so many doubts in the case of the prosecution and benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that already the petitioner/accused No.2 has approached this Court in Crl. P. No.818/2018 and this Court after considering the merits of the case, has dismissed the said petition on 17.02.2018. No new grounds have been made out to entertain the fresh bail application. It is further submitted that there are eye-witness to the alleged incident and even the said CW.13-Hanumantha, has specifically stated the overt-acts of the petitioner/accused No.2 and his presence is very much stated by the said witness. Further it is submitted that the delay in trial is not a good ground to release the petitioner on bail. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the earlier order dated 17.02.2018 in Crl.P. No.818/2018, all the grounds which have been urged today, have been considered and appreciated by the Court and the Court has come to the conclusion that prima-facie material is there against the petitioner/accused No.2 as such, the petition was came to be dismissed. The only new ground which has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since one year seven months, the petitioner/accused No.2 is languishing in jail, no charge has been framed and no further proceedings have been taken place even though there is a direction by this Court to take up the matter on priority basis, is not a good ground to release the petitioner on bail.
8. Without expressing anything on the merits, once again, it has been observed that the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS