Karnataka High Court
Syed Akram vs State Of Karnataka By on 30 June, 2023
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:22658
CRL.P No. 4820 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4820 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SYED AKRAM,
S/O PYREJAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.16, 2ND CROSS,
NEAR NOOR MASJID,
MUNESHWARA LAYOUT,
BANDEPALYA,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED PASHA C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SHO, JIGANI PS,
BENGALURU - 560 0
Digitally REPRESENTED BY SPP,
signed by R HIGH COURT BUILDING,
MANJUNATHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.371/2023
(CR.NO.228/2022) OF JIGANI P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 120B, 396, 397 R/W 149 OF IPC, ON
THE FILE OF THE HONBLE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C
COURT, ANEKAL, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:22658
CRL.P No. 4820 of 2023
ORDER
Heard Sri. Mohammed Pasha C., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. The successive bail application with the following prayer by the accused No.8:
"WHEREFORE, the petitioner (Accused No.8) prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge petitioner on bail in Cr.No.228/2022 & C.C.No.371/2023 for alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 396, 397 r/w Section 149 of IPC, registered by the Respondent/Jigani Police, now pending on the file of Hon'ble Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Anekal, Bengaluru, in the interest of ustice. "
3. On an earlier occasion, this Court by a considered order dated 11.04.2023 rejected the bail request of the petitioner.
4. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that whenever a successive bail application is filed by an accused, it is incumbent on the part of the accused to establish that there is a positive changed circumstance/s in the case of the petitioner so as to seek for grant of bail.
5. In the case on hand, the grounds urged in the petition do not make out any such changed circumstances, -3- NC: 2023:KHC:22658 CRL.P No. 4820 of 2023 much less positive circumstances, so as to entertain the bail request. However, Sri. Mohammed Pasha C., argued on the merits of the matter by contending that no test identification parade has been conducted by the investigating agency and the present petitioner was not even found in the place of the incident and also the material available on record in the form of the statement of the charge sheet witnesses and the voluntary statement of the accused itself would go to show that the present petitioner did not participate in the incident and as such, he is entitled for grant of bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail request by contending that irrespective of the fact that the present petitioner participated in the prosecution or not, the prosecution having invoked Section 120B of the IPC, the role of the petitioner cannot be isolated from the rest of the incident and therefore, his bail request cannot be entertained by this Court and there is no positive changed circumstances in the case of the petitioner.
7. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. -4-
NC: 2023:KHC:22658 CRL.P No. 4820 of 2023
8. Admittedly, the contentions urged by the petitioner herein have already been urged, and the same has been considered by this Court in the order dated 11.04.2023. This Court, in paragraph 23 of the said order, has clearly opined about the prosecution invoking Section 120B of IPC and that no independent role of the petitioner is necessary in order to appreciate his bail request with a successive bail application. Suffice to say that from the date of rejection of the earlier bail request to the present bail request, there has been no improvement, much less a positive improvement, in the case of the petitioner. As such, no grounds are made out to entertain the bail request.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Babu Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1978)1 SCC 597 especially paragraph No. 4, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the judicial system in the country is suffering from slow motion syndrome and therefore, unnecessarily, the accused persons are to languish in the prison as an undertrial prisoner, and therefore, the petitioner is to be granted bail.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:22658 CRL.P No. 4820 of 2023
10. He also pointed out that the case is not even committed to the Sessions Court and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. Such a contention on behalf of the petitioner cannot also be countenanced in law.
11. In view of the fact that the present petition is filed within a short span of time from the date of disposal of the earlier petition, if the case is not yet committed, the counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to make a request to the learned Principal District Judge, and the necessary orders would be passed by the learned Principal District Judge on the administrative side.
12. Learned High Court Government Pleader also assures the Court that necessary instructions would be given to the prosecution agency to expedite the trial. Such an assurance would quell all apprehensions expressed on behalf of the petitioner with regard to the slow-motion trial.
13. Further, having regard to the number of cases already pending before the Court, if there is no progress at all in the case of the petitioner for a sufficient period of time, he may again approach this Court with yet another bail request. -6-
NC: 2023:KHC:22658 CRL.P No. 4820 of 2023
14. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner, this Court pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition is rejected.
The Trial Court shall dispose of the main criminal case as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8 CT: AVB