Karnataka High Court
Channakeshava @ Keshava vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 August, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1768
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2763/2020
BETWEEN:
Channakeshava @ Keshava
S/o late Shivanna
Aged about 33 years
Residing at No.32, 4th 'E' Cross
Behind Akash Theater
Rajeshwarinagara, Laggere,
Benglauru-560 058.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Jayasimha K.P., Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
by Rajagopal Nagar Police Station
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.1076/2017 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections
498-A and 302 of Indian Penal Code.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
'through Video Conference', the Court made the
following:-
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner- accused on bail in Crime No.1076/2017 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station (S.C.No.523/2018) pending on the file of LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 of Indian Penal Code.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- accused Sri Jayasimha K.P. through video conference and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Rohith B.J. for the respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the deceased- Shobha was legally wedded to the accused about 9 years back. The accused was addicted to alcohol and he used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally for -3- demand of money. The deceased was working in Garments and she left the job and has received as a Provident Fund to the extent of Rupees One Lakh. When she failed to pay the said Provident Fund to the petitioner- accused, on 09.12.2017, he came to the house by consuming alcohol and picked up a quarrel. With an intention to kill, he poured the kerosene on her and set her ablaze. As a result of the same, she died because of the injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that already investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner- accused has been apprehended on 11.12.2017 and no progress has been made in the case of the prosecution. It is his further submission that CWs.1 to 5 have been summoned, but they remained absent and they have not kept themselves present for recording the evidence. It is his further submission that the petitioner-accused is -4- languishing in jail since more than two and half years and because of Covid-19 it is not safe to keep the petitioner- accused in custody. It is his further submission that the eyewitnesses who are said to have been witnessed the said incident are not the eyewitnesses and they are only circumstantial witnesses. It is his further submission that the petitioner-accused is a permanent resident and there is no chance of he being absconding and he will be available for the trial and he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-accused has approached this Court successively for three times and this Court by taking into consideration merits of the case, dismissed all the three petitions. It is his further submission that there are two eyewitnesses to the alleged incident who have seen the accused standing -5- outside the house when the smoke was coming out of the house and they have categorically stated with regard to ill- treatment and harassment said to have been caused by the accused. It is his further submission that the petitioner- accused has committed a grave offence of pouring kerosene and litting the fire. It is his further submission that already summons have been issued to Cws.1 to 5, because of Covid-19 the case has not been concluded and after the Courts are commenced, the trial is going to be expedited. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-accused approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.3499/2018 and the same came to be dismissed on 6.7.2018, subsequently he approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.6156/2018 and the same was dismissed on -6- 26.3.2019, thereafter again the petitioner-accused approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.6544/2019 and the said petition was also came to be dismissed at the hands of this Court on 28.11.2019. This is the fourth successive bail petition which has been filed by the petitioner-accused.
8. The only contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused is that the eyewitnesses have been summoned and they have not kept themselves present for recording the evidence and because of Covid-19 it is not safe to keep the petitioner-accused in custody. Merely because the trial has not yet commenced, that is not a good ground to release the petitioner-accused on bail, that too when this Court has already dismissed the three successive bail petitions considering the merits of the case and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner- accused has not made out any good ground to enlarge him on bail and at this stage it is not a good ground to release the petitioner-accused on bail. Even there are two -7- eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and they have seen the petitioner-accused standing in front of the house when the smoke is coming out of the house and they have also spoken with regard to ill-treatment and harassment said to have been caused by the accused. Under the said facts and circumstances there are no good grounds to release the petitioner-accused on bail.
9. However, liberty has been given to the petitioner- accused that only after examination of all the material witnesses, if he is advised to do so, he can move the application for bail.
With the above observation, petition is disposed of. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE *AP/-