Karnataka High Court
Chennegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 October, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5070 OF 2020
BETWEEN
Chennegowda,
S/o. Late Chennaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.37, Sanyasi Quarters
K.G.Nagar Main Road,
K.G.Nagar
Bengaluru City-560018.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. K.A.Chandrashekara, Advocate)
AND
The State of Karnataka,
By the Police of
Kempegowdanagara Police Station,
Bengaluru-560018
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.118/2017 of Kempegowda Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru City, of the offence punishable under Sections
498A, 326A, 302 of IPC.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders through
video conferencing this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Heard both sides.
2. Petitioner is facing trial in S.C. No. 1409/2017 on the file of Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 326A and 302 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that out of 33 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, 22 witnesses have been examined. 18 are independent witnesses and none of them has supported the prosecution case. Therefore, on this ground bail can be granted. His second point of argument is in the month of February 2020, when the matter was posted for arguments, the prosecution made an application for examination of CW16. That application was allowed and so far he has not been examined. Therefore, there is delay in conclusion of trial.
3
3. High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail application by submitting that the trial is coming to an end, delay is attributable to spreading of infectious Covid-19. The courts were closed for quite a long time.
4. With regard to the first point of argument, it is to be stated that while deciding the bail application, this court cannot assess the evidence. Even if the witnesses have turned hostile, it is for the trial court to appreciate the evidence to come to a right conclusion. If the bail court appreciates the evidence, it is nothing but usurping on the jurisdiction of the trial court which is not permitted. Hence, this ground of argument is rejected.
5. The prosecution wanted to examine CW16 and for that purpose it made an application seeking permission of the court to examine the witness at the stage when the matter was posted for arguments. It is submitted that the said application is allowed. It is within the knowledge of everybody that the courts were closed because of controlling the spreading of pandemic Covid-19. Nobody is responsible 4 for the delay. Now recording of evidence has commenced in a phased manner in the courts. Therefore, this ground cannot be considered. However, the trial court may be directed to expedite the trial. Therefore, this petition is rejected. Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the trial at the earliest.
Sd/-
JUDGE ckl