Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Venkatesh Krishna Harikantra vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2013

                            1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
           CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

      DATED THIS THE 26 T H DAY OF JUNE 2013

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

         CRIMINAL PETI TION No.2998/2013

BETWEEN

SRI VENKATESH KRISHNA HARIKANTRA
S/O KRISHAN HARIKANTRA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/O MAVALLI VILLAGE,
HIREDOMME MURDESHWAR
BHATKAL TALUK

                                     ..... PETITIONER

(BY SRI VEERESH R BUDHIHAL, ADV.)


AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MURUDESHWAR TOWN POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE

                                    ..... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.S. PATIL, HCGP)
                                  2




     CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.32/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE S.J.,
UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
376 AND 302 OF IPC.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETI TION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                               ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail having been arrested and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 & 302 of IPC.

2. The petitioner had applied for the bail earlier in Criminal Petitioner No.11305/2011 and this Court, on 09.11.2011 had rejected the application. Anyhow, this Court directed to the trial Court to conclude the trial at an earliest time and preferably within six months. It is under these circumstances, the present petition has been filed contending that there is change in the circumstances.

3

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the FSL report pertaining to the DNA result and it reveals that the semen which is collected from the petitioner does not match with the vaginal swab collected and therefore, he contends that there is change in circumstances. Anyhow, the report dated 27.05.2011 was before the Court on the date that the present application was filed. That apart, there is nothing to suggest that the vaginal swab did contain semen. The absence of semen in the vaginal swab itself is not a circumstance in favour of the petitioner to consider application for grant of bail to the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out any other ground to establish the change in circumstance to file present petition. Though this Court has directed to complete the trial at an earliest or preferably within six months. That apart, there are serious charges of commission of rape and murder. In such circumstances, there is no justification for the 4 petitioner to claim bail. Anyhow, the trial Court will has to be granted fixed period within which the trial has to be completed. In the result, the petition is dismissed. The trial Court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of communication of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE Naa