Karnataka High Court
Mahesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2022
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
CRL.P.200090/22
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200090/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI.MAHESH
S/O SHARANAPPA ADAVI
AGE ABOUT 22 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT AND DOING BUSINESS
R/O SURAGIHALLI, SINDAGI TQ.
VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.S.S.YADRAMI, SR.COUNSEL
FOR SRI.HEMANARENDRA C.H., ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDI RURAL POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH AT KALABURAGI. .. RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.GURURAJ V.HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.139/2020 (SESSIONS CASE NO.170/2021) OF INDI RURAL
POLICE STATION, DISTRICT- VIJAYAPUR, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 504, 506 OF IPC
PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT VIJAYAPUR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT, SITTING AT DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.P.200090/22
-2-
ORDER
This is a successive bail petition filed by the sole accused in Crime No.139/2020 registered by the Indi Rural Police Station, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 504 and 506 of IPC, which is now pending before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in S.C.No.170/2021.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Yadrami appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a student and he is in custody ever since 08.08.2020. He submits that the charge is not yet framed and therefore, there is no likelihood of immediate trial as against the petitioner. He also submits that speedy trial is the right of the accused and delay in trial would be interfering with his right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and accordingly he prays to consider the bail petition of the petitioner.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader, who opposes the petition, submits that this is a successive bail application by the petitioner and the earlier petition was dismissed on merits. He submits that there is no change in CRL.P.200090/22 -3- circumstance and therefore, the successive bail application cannot be entertained. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
4. I have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed on both sides and also perused the material available on record.
5. The petitioner had earlier approached this court in Criminal Petition No.200104/2021 which was considered by this court on merits and dismissed on 28th January 2021. This court while dismissing the said petition, at paragraphs- 5 and 6 has observed as follows:
"5. From the material available on record, it is very clear that the alleged incident of the petitioner assaulting his father with an iron rod on his head has been witnessed by his younger brother, who has thereafterwards informed the same to his mother/complainant herein. The younger brother Kumaraswamy is the eyewitness to the incident in question. Complainant is the mother of the petitioner. There is sufficient material available on record to connect the petitioner to the crime. Petitioner is alleged to have committed murder of his own father.
6. Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence and also considering the fact that in the event the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is likely to tamper the prosecution witnesses, I am of the considered view that it is not a fit case to grant the relief of regular CRL.P.200090/22 -4- bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
The Criminal Petition is dismissed."
6. As rightly contended by the learned HCGP, no change in circumstance is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner so as to entertain the successive bail petition of the petitioner. Though the learned senior counsel has contended that speedy trial is the right of the accused and therefore, having regard to the fact that there is no immediate chance of the trial being commenced and concluded against the petitioner, his bail petition is required to be considered, I am of the considered view that such a contention cannot be entertained, having regard to the fact that this is a successive bail petition.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar -vs- Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav and Another1 has held that on the ground of right to speedy trial in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the accused cannot maintain a successive bail petition on the grounds already considered and rejected. However, 1 (2005) 2 SCC 42 CRL.P.200090/22 -5- considering the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody ever since 08.08.2020 and also considering the fact that he is a youngster aged about 22 years, who is said to be a student, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case where the trial Judge is required to be requested to expedite the trial and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
8. The petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh petition before this court after the evidence of material witnesses is recorded before the Trial Court.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-