IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4430 OF 2019 BETWEEN SRI JOHN KENNEDY @ KENNEDY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O ARTHAR DAS R/AT NO.01, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD OPP. RAKEENA CHURCH S.K.GARDEN, J.C.NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 006 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.46/2016 (S.C.NO.1511/2016) (C.C.NO. 14903/2013) OF J.C.NAGAR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 141, 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State. Perused the records.
2. Earlier this petitioner has approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.4904/2017 and the said petition was dismissed as not pressed, when it was at the crime stage. It is contended that the case is now culminated in S.C.NO.1511/2016 pending on the file of LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-57).
3. The records disclose that a bail petition was filed before the trial court in Criminal Misc.No.3386/2019. Same came to be dismissed on 25.04.2019. While discussing the facts and circumstances of the case, the court has observed that the petitioner being the prime accused and the evidence has already been started and the eyewitnesses have already been examined before the court, at this stage, it is not a fit case to release the accused on bail.
4. In this context, without going to the merits of the case, the learned Counsel requested the court to release the accused on bail on the ground that the accused – petitioner has been in jail for more than three years and the trial is not yet concluded. He relied upon a ruling of the Apex Court reported in 2007(7) Supreme 639 between Jaya Simha –vs- State of Karnataka wherein the court has observed, considering the facts and circumstances of that particular case, that about 256 witnesses are examined in the case and trial not yet concluded and the other accused, who are similarly placed, were released on bail. Therefore, the factual aspects of that case differ from facts and circumstances of the present case. No law as such is laid down in that particular case.
5. In this context, it is also worth to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 1 SCC 242 between Chenna Boyanna Krishna Yadav – vs- State of Maharashtra & Another wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while particularly dealing with the bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. observed that delay in conclusion of the trial of incarceration and likelihood of delays in conclusion of the trial are not by themselves singly or conjointly enough for grant of bail, yet both these factors may be taken into consideration with other circumstances in a given case.
6. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, there is no hard-and-fast rule or a fixed law has been laid down in either of the decisions.
7. In this particular case, as it is found that the main allegation is there against the petitioner and he actually stabbed the deceased with a knife and also eyewitnesses are there and the eyewitnesses are already examined before the court, it is too premature to draw any inference. Therefore, the petitioner, in my opinion, is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, as the facts stand, the trial has already been commenced and the witnesses have been examined, the trial court is hereby directed to make all its endeavour to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observation, this petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KNM/-