IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 2073/2019 BETWEEN SRI. THILAK B AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O BANDIKEMPEGOWDA R/O NO.405, 11TH CROSS 4TH MAIN ROAD, SRINIVASANAGAR SUNKADAKATTE BANGALORE – 560 091 (PRESENTLY UNDER DURESS AT CENTRAL PRISON PARAPPANA AGRAHARA AT BENGALURU) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA. S. CHALKE, ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE BY KAMKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI …. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.355/2017 OF KAMAKSHIPALAYA P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss. 302, 201, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This bail petition is filed before this Court for the second time by the petitioner (A1) without there being any changed circumstance, except the long incarceration of the petitioner in jail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (A1) submitted that, trial of the case has already been commenced in this case and since 1½ years, only nine witnesses have been examined before the trial Court; There are as many as 41 witnesses, therefore, the trial may take considerable time; Therefore, on that ground, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
3. In the first bail petition in Crl.P. No.9279/2017, this court had an occasion to deal with the merits of the case and after keen observation of the charge sheet papers, it dismissed the petition vide order dated 11.01.2018. Therefore, there is no need for this court to once again go into the merits of the case. Of course, the long incarceration of the accused is established, but, in a span of 1½ years only nine witnesses have been examined. The Criminal Procedure Code mandates that, once the trial in Sessions Case is started, it should be taken on day-to-day basis, unless there is any serious interception for the purpose of adjourning the case. However, considering the pendency of many number of cases, adjournment becomes inevitable in certain circumstances, but, it does not mean to say that, it should take long time for disposal of Sessions Case. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge should bear-in-mind that, once the Sessions Case is started, it should end-up at least within a period of one year.
4. With the above said observation, in my opinion, if I direct the trial Court to dispose of the main case itself within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, it would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court viz., 5th Addl. CMM, Bengaluru City, is directed to dispose of the main case within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*