Satish S/O Nagindrappa Pechatti vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6153 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                     KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                             BEFORE

THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B. PRABHAKARA SASTRY

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201595 OF 2021

Between:

Satish
S/o. Nagindrappa Pechatti
Age: 35 years,
Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Kodadur,
Taluk: Kalgi,
Dist. Kalaburagi.
                                                 ... Petitioner
(By Sri. Ishwar Raj S. Chowdapur, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka
Through Sedam P.S.,
Represented by Addl. State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench-585 103.
                                                ... Respondent
(By Sri. Gururaj V Hasilkar
High Court Government Pleader)

                                  ***
       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to release the petitioner on
bail in Crime No.23/2019 of Sedam Police Station in Sessions
Case No.105/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections
120B, 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, which is pending before IV
                                                 Crl.P.No.201595/2021
                                  2




Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi Sitting at
Sedam, in the interest of justice and equity.

      This Crl.P.(Kalaburagi Bench matter) having been heard
through video conference and reserved on 10-12-2021, at the
Principal Bench at Bengaluru, coming on for pronouncement of
orders before the Principal Bench at Bengaluru, this day, the
Court made the following:
                             ORDER

The present petitioner has sought for his enlargement on

bail by filing this petition under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as

the 'Cr.P.C') in Crime No.23/2019 of the respondent - Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 302

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter

for brevity referred to as the 'IPC').

2. The respondent - State, appearing through the learned

High Court Government Pleader, has filed its objections to the

petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State are

appearing through video conference.

4. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the

materials placed before the Court.

Crl.P.No.201595/2021

5. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that,

the deceased Sharbhavati and accused persons had a civil

dispute between them with respect to certain landed properties.

Accused No.1, who is the uncle of the deceased, had brought her

up since she had lost her parents during her childhood. After her

marriage, she started residing at a place called Sedam with her

husband Mallanna Gundagurthi. At that time, said Sharbhavati

filed a civil suit against the accused persons claiming her share in

the property of her father. In that regard, a panchayat was also

convened by the elders of the village Kodadur. But in spite of

the advise of the panchas, accused No.1-Nagendrappa, uncle of

the deceased and his sons i.e., accused Nos.2 to 4 are said to

have refused to give any share to deceased Sharbhavati. This

made her to file a civil suit against them for a share in her

alleged ancestral properties. The matter is said to have went up

to the Hon'ble Apex Court and it was decreed in favour of the

deceased Sharbhavati holding that, she was entitled for 20 acres

of land and mesne profits and also litigation expenses. This

developed a grudge between the accused and deceased

Sharbhavati. They, with an intention of depriving her of her

lawful entitlement, hatched a conspiracy to kill her. In the Crl.P.No.201595/2021

meanwhile, several criminal cases were said to have been

registered against the accused persons.

6. It is the further case of the prosecution that, on

Dt.27-01-2019, at about 6:00 p.m., when deceased Sharbhavati

was said to have gone to purchase vegetables at Sedam Sandy

(market day), in execution of their conspiracy, the accused

persons, through accused Nos.3 and 4 followed the deceased on

a motorcycle. Accused No.4 - Satish was the rider and accused

No.3-Dinesh was the pillion rider. They approached the

deceased without her notice and knowledge and holding her from

her back side, they inflicted injury with a chopper on her throat

and fled away from the spot. Though the injured was

immediately taken to the Government Hospital, Sedam, and later

shifted to Government Hospital at Kalaburagi, but she

succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 7:35 p.m.

In that regard, one Sri. Basalingappa, son of the deceased,

lodged a police complaint against the accused which was

registered in their Station Crime No.23/2019, for the offences

punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with Section 34 of

the IPC.

Crl.P.No.201595/2021

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his argument

submitted that, in this successive bail petition of the present

petitioner, his only argument is that, the delay that is being

caused in the trial violates the fundamental right of the

petitioner herein/accused No.3 under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

He submitted that the accused has been in judicial custody

since two years and ten months, still, the trial has not yet

commenced.

Stating that a speedy trial is a fundamental right of every

accused, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Hussain and Another Vs. Union of India reported in

2017 CRI. L. J. 2234.

8. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent - State, who also has filed his Statement of

Objections, stated that, there are sufficient materials to prove

the alleged guilt against the accused. The Charge sheet

witnesses viz. CW-11 to CW-19 are the eye witnesses to the

incident, who have seen the petitioner (accused No.3), joined by

the other accused committing a day light murder in a market

place in public on a sandy day. As such, mere alleged delay Crl.P.No.201595/2021

cannot be the only criteria for enlarging the accused No.3

(petitioner) on bail in a heinous crime like the one on hand.

He further submitted that the case in the Trial Court is due

for framing of charge, which is fixed on Dt.03-01-2022 and that

the trial would follow immediately without further delay.

9. Admittedly, the present petition is a successive bail

petition of the present petitioner. Similar bail petition in Criminal

Petition No.201577/2019 was disposed of as not pressed by the

petitioner, vide order of this Court dated 27-01-2020. His

another bail petition in Criminal Petition No.200309/2020 came

to be dismissed as devoid of merit by this Court on 24-11-2020.

As such, it is only the change in the circumstance made out by

the learned counsel for petitioner, if any, in this petition, is to be

looked into.

10. CWs.11 to 19 are shown to have stated before the

Investigating Officer that, they are the eye witnesses to the

alleged incident. It is also shown that those witnesses have also

identified the accused in the Police Station and given their

further statements before the Investigating Officer in that

regard.

Crl.P.No.201595/2021

According to the Investigating Officer, the alleged weapon

said to have been used for the commission of the crime, which is

a chopper, is said to have been recovered at the instance of one

of the accused persons, in the presence of panchas, after

drawing a panchanama. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)

report is also said to have been collected with respect to the said

weapon.

11. The Investigating Officer also claims to have recovered

the motor cycle alleged to have been used in the commission of

the crime, at the instance of the present petitioner and by

drawing a seizure panchanama. All these materials placed along

with the charge sheet, at this stage and prima facie would go to

show that, the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient

material against the present petitioner/accused No3, for

subjecting him to the trial for the alleged offences. The alleged

recovery of the motor cycle, at the instance of the petitioner and

recovery of the weapon and also the statement said to have

been given by CWs 11 to 19 before the Investigating Officer,

more particularly, their statements with respect to the alleged

role of the present petitioner in the alleged commission of the

crime keeps him on a separate footing, as such, even though two Crl.P.No.201595/2021

accused in this crime are said to have been enlarged on bail,

would disentitle the present petitioner to claim the same benefit

on the ground of parity.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed on only

one point of the alleged delay in the trial, as a change in the

circumstance, warranting the accused to prefer the present

petition.

13. No doubt in Hussain's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex

Court has held that, continuation of accused in custody for a long

period amounts to violation of his right of speedy trial. It is also

held in the same case that, timely delivery of justice is a part of

human rights, as such, denial of speedy justice is a threat to

public confidence in the administration of justice.

While summing up its judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in

the very same case has directed the High Courts to issue

directions to sub-ordinate Courts among various points including

the time factor for disposal of a criminal case and observed that,

the sessions trial, where the accused are in custody to be

normally concluded within two years.

Crl.P.No.201595/2021

14. In the instant case, the accused No.3/petitioner herein

is said to be in judicial custody for about two years and ten

months. However, it cannot be ignored of the fact that, for quite

some time, in the year 2020-21, considerable part of the court

work, particularly of the sessions trial, was hampered due to

COVID -19 (Corona pandemic). However, the Trial Court is now

said to be proceeding with the matter and the Sessions Case is

now said to have been slated for framing of charges on

Dt.03-01-2022. As submitted by the learned High Court Govt.

Pleader for the respondent - State, it can be anticipated that, the

trial would follow the framing of charge.

15. Thus, the mere presumed delay cannot be a ground

for enlarging the present petitioner on bail, in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, which involves a heinous

crime. Thus, I do not find any reasons for allowing this petition.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE BMV*