Karnataka High Court
Krishna S/O Lalappa Gajare vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2021
Author: K.S.Mudagal
1 Crl.P.No.200839/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200839/2021
BETWEEN:
Krishna S/o Lalappa Gajare
Age: 21 Years, Occ: Private Work
R/o Dore Road, Shivaji Nagar
Kalaburagi-585104
... Petitioner
(By Sri Mahantesh H. Desai, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
through Gulbarga Rural P.S., Kalaburagi
Represented through
Addl. State Public Prosecutor of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Bench
at Kalaburagi-585 103
... Respondent
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to release the accused/petitioner on bail in
2 Crl.P.No.200839/2021
Crime No.328/2018 of Gulbarga Rural P.S. pending before
the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi for the
offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) r/w
Section 34 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court
made the following:
ORDER
Heard.
2. This is the second successive petition of the
petitioner seeking bail in Crime No.328/2018 of Kalaburagi
Rural Police which is now pending in S.C.No.155/2019 on
the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
3. The petitioner is facing trial in the said case for
the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B r/w
Section 34 of IPC. It is alleged that the petitioner along
with accused No.2 (the child in conflict with law) due to
some previous ill-will on 15.11.2018 at 11.30 a.m. in the
house of C.W.10 stabbed victim Sharmila and committed
her murder. It is further alleged that after committing
murder, he escaped with her jewelry, wallet cash and
mobile phone etc.
4. The allegations against accused No.2 was that
when the petitioner was committing crime he was standing
outside the house of C.W.10 to alaram the petitioner if any
person comes.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that C.Ws.15 to 17, the witnesses to the last seen theory
were examined as P.Ws.10, 11 and 7 respectively and they
turned hostile. So far as the recovery of incriminating
material, it is contended that as per the evidence of P.W.8,
the Jewelry of the victim were found on the dead body
after the incident. Therefore, it is contended that the
theory of recovery fails. It is further contended that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 2018 and trial is not
yet completed.
6. This court rejected the petitioner's earlier bail
petition in Crl.P.No.200641/2019 considering the merits of
the case. The case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence of motive, last seen theory,
recovery of jewelry and weapon of offence from the
petitioner and the medical evidence.
7. The death of the victim is homicidal one and
same is not disputed. The main incriminating evidence is
the recovery of the jewelry and the weapon of offence at
the instance of the petitioner. The deposition of P.W.8
shows that she is the maternal grandmother of the
petitioner. Therefore, her evidence suiting his defence
cannot come to his rescue.
8. So far as the petitioner being in judicial
custody since 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment in Anil Kumar Yadav vs State (NCT of Delhi)
& Anr. reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129 has held that in
crimes like murder, the mere fact that accused was in
custody for more than one year, may not be a relevant
consideration. It was further held that period of
incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be
enlarged on bail. Therefore, that ground does not sustain.
There are no grounds for reconsidering the matter. The
petition is dismissed.
The trial court is requested to dispose of the matter
as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
