IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8336/2017 BETWEEN:
SRIRANGA ABHISHEK @ ABHISHEK AGED 28 YEARS S/O JAGADISH NO.5127, 8TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR MYSURU – 01.
(BY SRI.MAHESH S., ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY, ADUGODI POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 01.
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.103/2014 (S.C.NO. 744/2014) OF ADUGODI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120B, 396, 397, 302 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201, 396, 397 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.103/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that totally there are 52 prosecution witnesses in the case and as of now only 11-12 witnesses have been examined, there is nothing material deposed by those witnesses and to examine the remaining witnesses, it may take considerable time and unnecessarily the petitioner has to continue in custody, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that there is prima-facie material and the paragraph Nos.8 and 9 in the order of the learned Sessions Judge clearly show that important witnesses will have to be examined in the case viz., panchanama witnesses, witness from FSL, Doctor, Investigating Officer and other material witnesses are to be examined in the case. He also submitted that P.W.1, who has been examined, has already deposed against the petitioner herein. Hence, submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. I have also perused the order dated 28.11.2014 passed by this Court in Crl.P.7075/2014, wherein paragraph No.3 reads as under:
“3. In the light of dismissal of bail petition filed by Mr.Madhu, accused No.2, in Cr.No.103/2014 on the file of Arehalli Police Station, bail petition filed by this petitioner, who is accused No.1 cannot be considered, in the light of the serious allegations of murder of Udayraj Singh by accused Nos.1 and 2 and after committing the dacoit.”
6. Therefore, considering these materials, so also, the order of this Court I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Apart from that, this Court, while considering the bail petition of accused No.5, by its order dated 03.11.2017 passed in Crl.P.6553/2017, observed that “it is not a case for grant of bail, however, this Court directed the concerned trial Court to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the case as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order.
In view of the above, present petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR