Shiva @ Shivu @ Shivaraju T D vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2990 Kant

                          1



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.482/2021

BETWEEN:

SHIVA @ SHIVU @ SHIVARAJU T.D.,
S/O DEVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT THOPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK-571428.                     ...PETITIONER

            (BY SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH MADDUR P.S,
MANDYA DISTRICT,
REP BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.                     ...RESPONDENT

         (BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R-1,
       SRI TEJAS N, ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.444/2018 (S.C.NO.65/2019) OF MADDUR
P.S., MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120B, 201
READ WITH 149 OF IPC.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                               2



                         ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.444/2018

of Maddur Police Station, Mandya District, for the offence

punishable under Sections 143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302,

120B, 201 read with 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3. This petition is a successive bail petition filed by

accused No.4. The sum and substance of the allegation

against this petitioner is that he inflicted injury with knife

along with other assailants and this petitioner had earlier

approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.4807/2019 and this

Court rejected the bail petition. Now the petitioner is before

this Court on the ground that there was a delay in

commencement of trial.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the incident was taken place on 24.12.2018 and the

charge-sheet was filed on 09.03.2019 and the trial has not

been commenced. The learned counsel submits that accused

Nos.7 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail vide order

dated 20.10.2020 and 26.07.2019 and it takes longer time

for completion of trial and hence the petitioner may be

enlarged on bail.

5. The learned counsel in support of his arguments

relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

MAHESH KUMAR BHAWSINGHKA v. STATE OF DELHI

reported in (2000) 9 SCC 383, wherein the Apex Court

directed to complete the trial within three months and if trail

is not completed, directed the Trial Judge to release the

appellant on bail on executing a bond.

6. The learned counsel also relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VIVEK KUMAR v.

STATE OF U.P. reported in (2001) SCC Crl. 416, wherein it

is observed that the offences are under Sections 307 and 395

of IPC and the accused is languishing in jail from 04.04.1998

for almost 2 years and hence ordered to release him on bail.

7. The learned counsel also relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BABBA ALIAS

SHANKAR RAGHUMAN ROHIDA v. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA reported in (2005) 11 SCC 569, wherein

it is observed that the accused is in custody for more than 12

years and ordered to release him on bail. The learned

counsel submits that in the case on hand also from last three

years no trial is commenced and hence the petitioner may be

enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that this

petitioner had already approached this Court and this is a

successive bail petition and no changed circumstances is

made out by the petitioner. Apart from that, there were 25

external injuries and the incident of committing murder is

nothing but blood thirsty and there were 10 eye-witnesses to

the incident and it is a brutal attack and specific overt-act

allegation is made against the petitioner that he inflicted

injuries with knife. Hence, there are no grounds to enlarge

him on bail.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State, this Court has already

rejected the bail petition on merits in Crl.P.No.4807/2019.

Under the circumstances, this Court has to take note of the

changed circumstances to grant the bail. The learned

counsel mainly relied upon the principles laid down in the

judgments referred supra, wherein the Apex Court ordered to

release the accused on bail. In one case, the Court has

taken note of the fact that the accused was languishing in jail

for last 12 years and in one case offence is under Sections

395 and 307 of IPC and other case is TADA case and directed

to complete the trial within three months and if not

completed the trial, ordered to enlarge on bail, wherein the

offences are under Section 120B, 468 and 477A of IPC.

When such being the factual aspects of the case, first of all,

the offences which have been alleged against the petitioner is

offence under Section 307 as well as 302 of IPC and offence

is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and not like

the offences under Section 120B, 468, 477A, 307 and 395 of

IPC and also TADA offence, wherein also the accused persons

were languishing in jail for a period of 12 years and hence

bail was granted. But in the case on hand, case is based

upon the direct evidence i.e., particularly the eye-witnesses

and there are 10 eye-witnesses who witnessed the incident

of inflicted injury to the victim with deadly weapon knife and

also there were 25 multiple injuries, as a result he

succumbed to the injures. When such being the factual

aspects of the case, the judgments quoted by the learned

counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of

the case on hand. Apart from that, the learned counsel

submits that already accused Nos.2 and 7 have been

enlarged on bail. On perusal of those orders, there was no

any overt-act allegation against accused No.2 and the only

allegation against accused No.7 was that he had supplied

clothes after destroying the blood stained clothes of the

accused person and that attracts Section 201 of IPC. When

such being the factual aspects of the case, those orders will

not come to the aid of the petitioner. In the absence of any

changed circumstances, non-commencement of trial from

2019 after filing of the charge-sheet is not a ground to

enlarge the petitioner on bail when serious offence of taking

the life of the victim is alleged against the petitioner herein.

Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to entertain the

successive bail petition.

10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass

the following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE MD