IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9080/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri.Vijay Kumar, S/o. Late. K.M.Krishnappa, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Dodda Kadathuru Village, Hungenahalli Post, Malur Taluk, Kolar-563 130, ...Petitioner (By Sri.M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Malur Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.297/2017 registered by Malur Police Station, Kolar and in S.C.No.117/2018 pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar for the offence p/u/s 302 and 498(A) of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner for sometime, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order of trial Court dated 19.11.2018, PWs.1 to 6 have been examined and out of them, the material eye-witnesses have also been examined. It is further submitted that as per the charge sheet material, they have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and even during the course of cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited to substantiate the fact that they are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and they have seen the assault committed by accused No.1. Further, it is submitted that earlier, the charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 4. Subsequently, accused Nos.2 to 4 have been dropped out and charge sheet is filed only against accused No.1.
That itself clearly go to show that the accused-petitioner is not involved in the alleged crime. But on close reading of the order of trial Court dated 19.11.2018, when the said order has been passed, at that time, the eye-witnesses were not examined before the Court. As such, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that there are eye-witnesses as per CWs.2 to 8 and it is a heinous offence and as such, the bail application was rejected.
Now, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the eye-witnesses have turned hostile, under such circumstance, if the trial Court reconsider the application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and pass an appropriate order, it is going to meet the ends of justice as the full fledged material will be there before the Court below.
In that light, liberty is reserved to the petitioner/accused to approach the trial Court once again, and to file an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in the event, if the said application is rejected, he is at liberty to file a fresh petition before this Court.
With above observation, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS