Karnataka High Court
Jagadeesha @ Jaga vs State Of Karnataka on 16 August, 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5346/2018
BETWEEN:
Jagadeesha @ Jaga
S/o.Late Siddaiah
Aged about 43 years
Residing at:
Thopanahalli Village
Maddur Taluk
Mandya District-571 401.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Kemparaju, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka
By Maddur Police Station
Rep by its Public Prosecutor
High Court Complex
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri Chethan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.582/2016 of Maddur Police Station, Mandya and
in S.C.No.82/2017 pending on the file of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Mandya for the offences
2
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323,
324, 307, 302, 109, 114, 120 (B) read with 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Accused No.3 has filed this petition seeking bail again having failed in his earlier attempts to obtain bail. He is facing trial in S.C.No.82/2017 on the file of Principle District and Sessions Judge, Mandya. The only argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court, while dismissing the Criminal Petition No.2546/2018 filed by the petitioner, observed that in Criminal Petition No.2219/2017 itself liberty had been granted to the accused persons to move the Court for bail. Till now charges are not framed and recording of evidence has not commenced. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner needs to be enlarged on bail. He also refers to the order passed in Criminal Petition No.2545/2018 and submits 3 that accused No.2 was admitted to bail and therefore, the petitioner also becomes entitled to bail on the ground of parity.
2. The High Court Government Pleader submits that the trial Court has made all the efforts to frame the charges. Draft charges were handed over to the counsel for the accused. Though this petitioner is in custody, other accused who are released on bail, are not appearing before the Court regularly and this is the reason for the trial Court being not able to frame charges and take up the case for trial. He also submits that the accused No.2 moved this Court seeking bail by filing Criminal Petition No.2545/2018. He suppressed the fact of dismissal of Criminal Petition Nos. 2219/2017 and 2546/2018 and therefore, the State has now moved for cancellation of bail granted to accused No.2.
4
3. I have perused the order of this court in Crl.P.2219/2017. In the said order it has been clearly observed that prima facie materials are available against the petitioner. Even when criminal petition No.2546/2108 was disposed of, the order passed in Crl.P.No.2219/2017 has been referred to. In this view of the matter I do not find any changed circumstances to entertain this petition. If the submission made by the High Court Government Pleader is considered, the delay in framing charge is attributable to the conduct of all the accused. Therefore delay cannot be a ground for seeking bail. It appears that when this court disposed of Crl.P.No.2545/2018, the fact of dismissal of Crl.P.2219/2017 was not brought to notice of this court. Therefore this petition does not deserve to be allowed. Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ns/sd