Karnataka High Court
Shrishail S/O Bheemappa Sarur vs The State Through on 25 March, 2022
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200231 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHRISHAIL,
S/O BHEEMAPPA SARUR,
AGE: 29 YEARS (AS PER LCO),
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KAMBAGI, TQ, BABLESHWAR
AND DISTRICT, VIJAYAPURA ...PETITIONER
RANK: ACCUSED NO.1 BEFORE THE
TRIAL COURT IN CR.NO.84/2019.
(BY SRI VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE, THROUGH BABLESHWAR PSI,
VIJAYPURA, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT,
KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI - 585 107. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI GURURAJ V HASILKAR, HCGP)
****
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.81/2019 (S.C.NO.104/2020) OF BABALESHWAR POLICE STATION,
DISTRICT - VIJAYAPUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 143,
147, 148, 302, 201, 120(B), 109, R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC. PENDING
BEFORE THE LEARNED DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT VIJAYAPUR.
2
THIS PETITION PERTAINING TO KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING
ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SITTING AT BENGALURU BENCH
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.1 to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.84/2019 of Babaleshwar Police Station, Vijayapura, charge sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 201, 120(B), 109 r/w Section 149 IPC.
2. Crl.P.Nos.200166/2020 and 200172/2021 filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court on merits. While dismissing Crl.P.No.200172/21 vide order dated 05.04.2021 this Court has observed that if the trial does not commence within a period of six months, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh petition before the Sessions Court. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.1383/2021, which has now been dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2022.
3
3. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that an order refusing an application for a bail on an earlier occasion does not preclude another petition if it is filed on changed circumstances and explaining further developments in the case. He contends that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 13.07.2019 and so far the trial has not commenced. He contends that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and only on the basis of recovery of knife from the petitioner, he has been implicated in this case. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
1) Babu Singh and Ors. V. State of U.P. in Crl.A.No.274/1977 decided on 31.01.1978,
2) Balakrishna Tukaram Angre v. The State of Maharashtra in Crl.A.No.1704/2017 decided on 22.09.2017, 4
3) Unreported decision of this Court passed in Crl.P.No.616/2021 in the case of Inna v. State of Karnataka, decided on 15.02.2021
4) Unreported decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor decided on 19.12.1946 and
5) Unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Petition No.201628/2021 in the case of Ningaraj v. The State of Karnataka decided on 03.01.2022.
4. Heard the learned counsel and perused the above citations relied upon by him.
5. It is well settled that an order refusing an application for bail does not necessarily preclude another application on a later occasion, giving more materials, further developments and different considerations. In the 5 case on hand, this Court has already considered the prayer of the petitioner and on two occasions his petition came to be dismissed on merits after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner has contended that on several occasions, the petitioner was not produced before the Court by the Jail authorities and the same has delayed the trial of the case.
7. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge reveals that the petitioner / accused No.1 was not produced before the Court physically nor through Video Conference on 08.12.2020, 15.01.2021, 11.02.2021, 05.04.2021, 13.05.2021, 17.06.2021. However, on 17.07.2021, the Court issued intimation to the jail authority to produce him since his presence was required for framing the charge on the said date of hearing. On that day the learned counsel for accused No.1 submitted that the charge 6 may be framed. Accordingly, on 22.10.2021, the presence of the accused was secured through Video Conference from the Central Prison, Belagavi, and charge was framed.
8. It is not in dispute that the case is set for trial. Merely because liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the Sessions Court if the trial did not commence within a period of six months itself does not mean that the accused is entitled for bail. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the facts and circumstances of the case has rejected his prayer for bail.
9. The learned counsel for petitioner would also contend placing reliance in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. King-Emperor (supra) that the prosecution is placing reliance on the recovery evidence which is an inadmissible piece of evidence. The said contention cannot be accepted at this stage, as it is for the accused to take all defence during trial and to contest the matter. This Court is not 7 expected to give any finding with regard to recovery evidence, which may prejudice the trial. Each case has to be dealt on its own facts. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, on two occasions the prayer of the petitioner was dismissed on merits.
10. The petitioner is facing trial for an offence punishable for death or imprisonment of life. The period of incarceration now undergone by him is not a ground to enlarge him on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any good ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. According to the charge sheet material, the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 engaged accused Nos.3 and 4 and with the help of his friend accused No.4, giving them supari committed the murder of his own brother by stabbing him on his neck. I do not find any changed circumstances so as to enlarge the petitioner on bail, as the 8 stage is set for trial. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE TL