Karnataka High Court
Father William Patrick vs State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2016
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.972/2016
BETWEEN:
FATHER WILLIAM PATRICK
S/O THOMAS,
AGED 45 YEARS
RESIDED AT ASISIYA
SAINT FRANCIS CHURCH
KENGERI UPANAGARA
BENGALURU - 562117
... PETITIONER
(By Sri: N.SUBBA SHASTRY, ADV FOR
SRI: MANJUNATH V, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YESHWANTPUR P S
BENGALURU -560022.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri: SADASHIVA MURTHY, SPP)
CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
2
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.157/2013 OF YESHWANTHPURA P.S.,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCEP/U/S 302,201,149 AND
120(B) OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 10.03.2016, AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY,
A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER ON THE BAIL APPLICATION FILED UNDER
SECTION 439, Cr.P.C.
This is the third consecutive bail application
under Section 439, Cr.P.C. after dismissal of the earlier
bail application filed in Crl.P.509/15 and Crl.P.3903/15
on 24.3.2015 filed on behalf of this petitioner in view of
existence of prima facie case. A direction had been
given to the Principal Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City to
frame charges and identify material witnesses with the
help of the special public prosecutor and to examine
them on priority. The SPP had been directed to assist
the learned judge in identifying the material witnesses
3
so that they could be identified in court, and then to
dispose of the matter as early as possible, preferably
within 9 months from the date of framing charges.
2. The second bail application had been filed on his
behalf along with two other accused in Crl.P.3903/15
which came to be dismissed on 24.7.2015 on the
ground that the case had already been posted for
framing charges and that the learned SPP would co-
operate with the court in conducting trial at the earliest
after material witnesses are identified by the court.
3. The present bail application is filed essentially on
the ground that the learned sessions judge has not
complied with the earlier direction issued by this court
in Crl.P.509/15 and Crl.P.3903/15 and that one year
has elapsed from 24.3.2015 when the first bail
application was dismissed.
4
4. The learned SPP has filed detailed objections
opposing the bail application on various grounds
contending inter alia, amongst others, that further
investigation was conducted in the present case relating
to the same Crime No.157/13 and seven persons have
been shown as additional accused in the additional
charge sheet filed under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. It is
mentioned that accused nos.4 and 5 in the original
charge sheet are absconding and seven more persons
are shown as accused. It is submitted that the
committal court has issued non-bailable warrants to
accused nos.6 to 12 to be served through Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru North, and accused
nos.6 to 9 and 10 to 12 have filed bail application under
Section 438, Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.7837/15 and 7798/15
and they were rejected by common order dated
29.12.2015.
5
5. It is further submitted that the case is posted for
framing of charges on 5.4.2016 before the trial court
and that steps are being taken by the committal court
to secure the presence of additional accused shown in
the additional charge sheet and that the SPP would co-
operate with the court in conducting trial the moment
charges are framed.
6. In the light of the subsequent event of arraigning
seven more persons in the additional charge sheet
before the committal court, the learned judge has not
chosen to frame charges. In the light of the main case
being filed initially against 5 persons and the case being
posted on 5.4.2016 for framing charges, and also in the
light of unequivocal submission made by Sri Sadashiva
Murthy, learned SPP that the public prosecutor would
not wait for the persons mentioned in the additional
charge sheet to be secured before the committal court,
this petition has to be dismissed.
6
7. As could be seen from the earlier order passed by
this court on 24.3.2015 in Crl.Ps.509/15, 355/15 and
510/15, elaborate reasons have been assigned as to the
existence of prima facie case. In the light of additional
charge sheet being filed against 7 more persons and in
the light of non-bailable warrant being issued to secure
their presence, some time is to be given to go on with
the case after framing charges.
8. In the result, the following order is passed:
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. is dismissed. The learned Principal Sessions Judge of Bengaluru City shall frame charges on 5.4.2016 and take up the case for trial, keeping in mind the earlier observations made by this court on 24.3.2015 in Crl.P.355/15. The learned SPP and the counsel to co- operate with the court in holding the trial in terms of Section 309, Cr.P.C.
7
Registry to send a copy of this order to the principal sessions court, Bengaluru City, for reference and compliance. In the meantime, learned Additional CMM to commit the case as early as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE vgh*