Karnataka High Court
Mahadev Singh vs The State on 25 May, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200410/2022
Between:
Mahadev Singh S/o Topu Singh Rathod,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Driver BMTC,
R/o Biyabani Area, Wadi, Tq. Chittapur,
Dist. Kalaburagi-585 225.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Nandkishore Boob, Advocate)
And:
The State through Wadi P.S.
Now representing by Addl. SPP,
High Court of Karnataka
Bench at Kalaburagi.
... Respondent
(By Sri. H.S.Shankar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to release the petitioner/accused in Crime
No.99/2014 of Wadi PS, for the offences U/s 302 & 506
IPC, which is pending before the Hon'ble IVth Addl. Dist. &
Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, sitting at Sedam, in
S.C.No.142/2015, in view of the reasons as stated above.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court passed the following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner being sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.99/2014 of Wadi Police Station, pending in SC No.142/2015 before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by informant.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused is charged for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 506 of IPC. It is alleged that accused assaulted his wife Smt.Sharubai on 04.07.2014 with an axe in his house, which resulted in her death. The mother of the deceased lodged first information and immediately the accused was apprehended on the same day. After due investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the above said offences. It is stated that now prosecution has 3 examined P.W.1 to 23 and the accused has also examined himself as DW.1.
3. Heard Sri Nandkishore Boob, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused and he is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. P.W.1 is the son of the petitioner and the deceased and he was tutored to depose before the Court. The prosecution has examined the witnesses and closed its side. After hearing the prosecutor, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard on 01.04.2021. Till today learned prosecutor has not addressed his reply arguments. Unnecessarily, the petitioner is being detained in the custody. Delay in trial would naturally entitle the 4 petitioner for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner which is punishable either with death or life imprisonment. The son of the petitioner is the eyewitness and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The axe which was used for commission of offence was seized from the scene of the offence. Of course, there is delay in addressing the reply arguments by the prosecutor. But the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
5
REASONS
7. The allegation made against the petitioner is of serious nature. It is alleged that the petitioner caused the death of his wife with an axe on 04.07.2014. Admittedly, 23 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution including the eyewitness i.e., son of the deceased. It is stated that accused examined himself as D.W.1. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 supported the case of the prosecution. The order sheet produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner would disclose that as long as on 01.04.2021 the argument on behalf of the accused was addressed. Strangely, till today, the prosecutor has not addressed his reply argument. Inspite of the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 04.07.2014, the Trial Court is not taking up the matter for final disposal. But looking into the nature and seriousness of the offence, which is supported by the version of the eyewitness, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. That does not mean to say that the petitioner should be languishing in the prison for an indefinite period. The prosecution as well 6 as the trial Court should be sensitive to the fact that accused is in judicial custody since several years. Even after conclusion of trial, the matter cannot be adjourned mechanically without there being any progress. Hence, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the matter in a time bound manner.
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed. However, Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to move similar petition for grant of bail.
Registry is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action.
Sd/-
JUDGE VNR