Karnataka High Court
Siddappa Dharamappa Neele vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 November, 2015
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2762/2015
BETWEEN
SIDDAPPA DHARAMAPPA NEELE
AGE:36 YEARS,
OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST
R/O BHAMMASAMUDRA, TQ.HUBLI,
DIST:DHARWAD-583 231
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R B CONTRACTOR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RURAL POLICE,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BULDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER (A-2) ON BAIL IN
HUBLI RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.114/2014
NOW PENDING IN S.C.NO.17/2015 OF THE
OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 R/W 149
OF IPC.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by Accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 R/w. Section 149 of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No.114/2014, now pending in S.C. No.17/2015.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that accused Nos.4 to 7 have already released on bail and accused Nos.1 to 3 are in custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner further made the submission that earlier accused Nos.1 to 3 :3: have moved a bail petition before this Court and this Court had passed an order dated 14.01.2015 in Crl.P. No. 101904/2014. Hence, he submitted that in spite of such direction by this Court, the evidence not yet recorded. Hence, he submitted to allow bail petition.
4. For this, learned HCGP for the respondent- State submits that the alleged offence is under Section 302 of IPC and hence the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, also the FIR, Complaint and other materials produced by the petitioner, so also the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No. 101904/2014, dated 14.01.2015. The order dated 14.01.2015 in Crl.P. 101904/2014 reads thus:
:4:
"After arguing for some time, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty for him to move fresh bail petition at appropriate stage and a direction may be given to the trial court to expedite the trial.
2. In the light of the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, petitioners are given liberty to move fresh bail petition before the concerned court. If such an application is filed, same shall be disposed of on merits in accordance with law only after recording the evidence of the complainant and the eyewitnesses CWs.10 and 11. The trial court shall immediately prepone the case, frame charges and commence the trial by procuring witnesses. The trial shall be concluded within an outer limit of five months from the date of framing of charges.":5:
6. Therefore, looking to the order passed by this Court and that the petitioners were asked to move the concerned trial Court by filing the bail petition, but it is not the case of the petitioner herein that has not observed by this Court. He has already moved before the trial Court and the same has been rejected and instead of filing the said petition before the concerned trial Court the petitioner directly approached this Court. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby directed to move such application before the concerned trial Court and after the disposal of the said application if there is any occasion for the petitoner, then he can apporach this Court. With these observations the present petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sbs*