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.6037/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI.K.RAVI, S/O LATE KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT #61/6, LIG, 5TH STAGE, YELAHANKA UPANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 068.
ALSO RESIDING AT:
SRI.K.RAVI, S/O LATE KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.532, 4TH MAIN ROAD, HANUMANTHAPURA, SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE – 560 021.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI NATARAJ D., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
…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.136/2013 (S.C.NO.1209/2013) OF YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 READ WITH 34 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. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.136/2013 (S.C.No.1209/2013) registered by Yelahanka New Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 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 18.05.2013, at 11.30 a.m. while complainant was going to attend the nature-call from his garage, he found one autorickshaw standing bearing registration No.KA-02-B- 2474 near the street light and he also found one person was sitting at backside seat of the autorickshaw in a sitting position and the said person was covered with bed- sheet. When he went near and saw, the person’s neck was cut with sharp weapon and clothes were stained with blood. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in the above crime number.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner – accused submitted that accused No.2 has already been enlarged on bail and hence, on the ground of parity the present petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is the further submission that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and trial has not yet been completed and the petitioner – accused is languishing in jail without any consideration as the under trial prisoner. The trial is likely to consume some more time. In this behalf he relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil K. Sinha Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1998) 5 SCC 607 and Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) Part 1 SCC 40. He submits that by imposing any stringent condition, the petitioner - accused may be enlarged on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and contended that the material witnesses have been examined and they have supported the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused No.2 who has been released is absconding and trial Court has issued NBW as against him. It is his further submission that if the accused petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he may also abscond. 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. As could be seen from the records, though the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader material witnesses have been examined and supported the case of the prosecution. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner made available the order sheet of the trial Court and the same goes to show that accused No.2 has remained absent and NBW has been issued and even notice has already been ordered to the sureties. The records clearly goes to show that when already accused No.2 is absconding and because of his absence the trial is postponed. Under such circumstances, I feel that the petitioner – accused has not made out any good grounds to release him on bail.
8. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, the petition stands dismissed.
9. Already this Court by order dated 15.04.2019 directed to dispose of the case with an outer limit of four months from the date of the receipt of the copy of the said order but the said order has not been complied with in time. In that light, show cause notice has been issued. In reply to the show cause notice, it has been stated that the said order has been brought to the Court’s notice only on 31.10.2019 and now the case has been fixed on 22.11.2019 and in that light, the explanation which has been made by the Presiding Officer of the said Court has been accepted.
10. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously within an outer limit of six months from today.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj