Karnataka High Court
Bavasab S/O Khasimsab ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 23 February, 2022
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
CRL.A.200233/21
-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 APPEAL NO.200233/2021
BETWEEN:
BAVASAB
S/O KHASIMSAB DONGRASANUR
AGE: 45 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
R/O VARKANALLI
TQ & DIST: YADGIRI-585 201. ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.RAVI B.NAIK, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI.GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH YADGIRI RURAL POLICE STATION
REP. BY LEARNED ADDL.SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
2. SANNA HANAMANTH
S/O TIPPAYYA MATALUR
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O VARKANALLI
TQ. & DIST: YADGIRI-585 201. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GURURAJ V.HASILKAR, HCGP;
R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APLPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14-A OF
SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED BAIL
REJECTION VIDE ORDER DATED 24.8.2021 PASSED IN SPL.CASE
NO.99/2021 BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI IN
CRL.A.200233/21
-2-
CRIME NO.124/2020 REGISTERED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BEFORE
YADGIRI RURAL POLICE STATION, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT, SITTING AT DHARWAD BENCH, THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCING, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is a successive bail application filed by the sole
accused in Crime No.124/2020 registered by the Yadgiri Rural
Police Station, Yadgir, for the offences punishable under Section
302 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(v) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ravi B.Naik appearing on
behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody
ever since 15.09.2020 and the trial has not yet commenced. He
submits that appellant is entitled for speedy trial in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He submits that the
agricultural operation, which was being earlier carried out by the
appellant, have come to a stand-still and therefore, his family is
facing serious hardship. Therefore, he prays that the appellant's
bail application may be considered sympathetically and he may
be enlarged on bail.
CRL.A.200233/21
3. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
opposes the appeal stating that no change in the circumstance is
made out and therefore, successive bail application cannot be
entertained. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
4. I have carefully appreciated the arguments addressed
on both sides and also perused the material available on record.
5. The appellant herein had earlier approached this court
in Criminal Petition No.200295/2021 which was considered by
this court on merits and dismissed vide order dated 24th
February 2021. This court while dismissing the said petition, at
paragraph-7 has observed as follows:
"7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and
the deceased were residing in the house where the
death has occurred. Even on the date of incident,
petitioner was residing in the said house. Petitioner
has informed Doddamallaiah, the uncle of the
complainant that the deceased had died because of
heart fail. The postmortem report of the deceased
would go to show that the death was due to
compression of neck by ligature. Admittedly, the
petitioner and the deceased were having illicit
relationship. There was a dispute between the
family of the petitioner and the deceased with
regard to certain property and the petitioner
allegedly had threatened the deceased on an earlier
date. Petitioner who was along with the deceased
on the date of incident has failed to explain the
cause of death. CW-10 allegedly is the eye-witness
to the incident. Under the circumstances, I am of
CRL.A.200233/21
the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be
enlarged on bail. Accordingly, petition is
dismissed."
6. As rightly contended by the learned HCGP, the appellant
has not made out any change in circumstance so as to entertain
the successive bail application filed by the appellant. Under the
circumstances, I do not find any ground to entertain the
successive bail application filed by the appellant.
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 application on the grounds already
considered and rejected.
The Criminal Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with liberty to
the appellant to approach this Court afresh after the evidence of
the sole eyewitness/CW-10 is recorded before the trial court.
SD/-
JUDGE
KNM/-
(2005) 2 SCC 42
