Bavasab S/O Khasimsab Dongrasanur vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 23 February, 2022

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Bavasab S/O Khasimsab Dongrasanur vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 23 February, 2022

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                              CRL.A.200233/21
                              -1-




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     KALABURAGI BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200233/2021

BETWEEN:

BAVASAB
S/O KHASIMSAB DONGRASANUR
AGE: 45 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
R/O VARKANALLI
TQ & DIST: YADGIRI-585 201.           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.RAVI B.NAIK, SR.COUNSEL FOR
 SRI.GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

  1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THROUGH YADGIRI RURAL POLICE STATION
     REP. BY LEARNED ADDL.SPP
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.

  2. SANNA HANAMANTH
     S/O TIPPAYYA MATALUR
     AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
     R/O VARKANALLI
     TQ. & DIST: YADGIRI-585 201.     .. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.GURURAJ V.HASILKAR, HCGP;
 R-2 SERVED)

     THIS CRIMINAL APLPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED BAIL
REJECTION VIDE ORDER DATED 24.8.2021 PASSED IN SPL.CASE
NO.99/2021 BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN
                                                   CRL.A.200233/21
                               -2-




CRIME NO.124/2020 REGISTERED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BEFORE
YADGIRI RURAL POLICE STATION, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, ETC.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT, SITTING AT DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

This is a successive bail application filed by the sole accused in Crime No.124/2020 registered by the Yadgiri Rural Police Station, Yadgir, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ravi B.Naik appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody ever since 15.09.2020 and the trial has not yet commenced. He submits that appellant is entitled for speedy trial in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the agricultural operation, which was being earlier carried out by the appellant, have come to a stand-still and therefore, his family is facing serious hardship. Therefore, he prays that the appellant's bail application may be considered sympathetically and he may be enlarged on bail.

CRL.A.200233/21

-3-

3. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the appeal stating that no change in the circumstance is made out and therefore, successive bail application cannot be entertained. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

4. I have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.

5. The appellant herein had earlier approached this court in Criminal Petition No.200295/2021 which was considered by this court on merits and dismissed vide order dated 24th February 2021. This court while dismissing the said petition, at paragraph-7 has observed as follows:

"7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the deceased were residing in the house where the death has occurred. Even on the date of incident, petitioner was residing in the said house. Petitioner has informed Doddamallaiah, the uncle of the complainant that the deceased had died because of heart fail. The postmortem report of the deceased would go to show that the death was due to compression of neck by ligature. Admittedly, the petitioner and the deceased were having illicit relationship. There was a dispute between the family of the petitioner and the deceased with regard to certain property and the petitioner allegedly had threatened the deceased on an earlier date. Petitioner who was along with the deceased on the date of incident has failed to explain the cause of death. CW-10 allegedly is the eye-witness to the incident. Under the circumstances, I am of CRL.A.200233/21 -4- the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed."

6. As rightly contended by the learned HCGP, the appellant has not made out any change in circumstance so as to entertain the successive bail application filed by the appellant. Under the circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the successive bail application filed by the appellant.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar -vs- Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Another1 has held that on the ground of right to speedy trial in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the accused cannot maintain a successive bail application on the grounds already considered and rejected.

The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to the appellant to approach this Court afresh after the evidence of the sole eyewitness/CW-10 is recorded before the trial court.

SD/-

JUDGE KNM/-

1 (2005) 2 SCC 42

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court