Suresh @ vs State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2015

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Suresh @ vs State Of Karnataka on 7 December, 2015

Bench: A. V. Chandrashekara

                                          Crl.P.5169/2015
                           -1-




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015

                        BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A. V. CHANDRASHEKARA


           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5169/2015

BETWEEN:

SURESH @ SEEGADI
S/O MUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESIDING AT HEBBALAGUPPE VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 001
                                          ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY H.D.KOTE POLICE STATION
MYSORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
                                        ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR. NO. 456/2012 OF H.D. KOTE P.S., MYSORE AND S.C. NO.
174/2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. S.J., MYSORE
                                                     Crl.P.5169/2015
                                  -2-



FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.
3, 4 AND 6 OF D.P. ACT.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

2. Petitioner is accused No.1 in a criminal case bearing Crime No. 456/12 on the file of respondent- Police Station. The offences alleged against him and others are punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act. This is the second successive bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., after the dismissal of similar bail application filed in Crl.P.No.3108/15 disposed on 23/6/2015. Allegation alleged against this petitioner is that he murdered his own wife by suspecting her fidelity. In the light of serious over acts attributed to this petitioner in relation to the murder of his own wife, this is not a fit case to grant regular bail. Crl.P.5169/2015 -3-

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

3. Anyhow, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that inspite of lapse of 2 years 7 months and framing of charges, trial has not commenced. If that is the case, it is the duty of the learned Judge to take up the case for trail without undue delay and dispose of the same as early as possible, preferable within 3 months from the first date of trial.

Send a copy of this order to concerned learned Sessions Judge at Mysore, for reference.

Sd/-

JUDGE Rd/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court