Sri Nanjegowda @ Nandeesha vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10247 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                          BEFORE

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

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4130/2022

BETWEEN:

SRI NANJEGOWDA @ NANDEESHA,
S/O HANUMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT YALIYURU (V),
DAMDIGANAHALLI HOBLI,
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.                               ...PETITIONER

           (BY SRI PRADEEP KUMAR M.G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560001.                           ...RESPONDENT

               (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
S.C.NO.119/2019 (CR.NO.23/2019) OF CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN
P.S., HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
302 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN (SITTING AT CHANNARAYAPATNA).

      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 S.C.No.119/2019 (Crime

No.23/2019) of Channarayapatna Town Police Station, Hassan,

for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3. This is a successive bail petition filed by the

petitioner before this Court and earlier this Court considered the

bail petition in Crl.P.No.6745/2019 vide order dated 21.01.2020

and in Crl.P.No.7487/2020 vide order dated 10.12.2020.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner before this Court is that the prosecution witnesses

were examined before the Trial Court and there are

contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and

this petitioner is in custody from 3 years 5 months. This Court

in Crl.P.No.7487/2020 vide order dated 10.12.2020, reserved

the liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before

the Trial Court after the examination of C.W.6. The learned

counsel submits that after the examination of C.W.6, bail

petition was moved before the Trial Court and the Trial Court has

rejected the bail petition vide order dated 06.12.2021 and hence

the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that liberty

was given to approach the Trial Court and liberty was already

exercised by filing an application and the Trial Court rejected the

same. Apart from that, the learned counsel submits that the

prosecution witnesses have been examined before the Trial

Court and all of them have supported the case of the

prosecution. The learned counsel submits that it is the case of

double murder and no grounds are made out to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material

available on record, this Court already considered the matter on

merits while disposing of Crl.P.No.6745/2019 vide order dated

21.01.2020 and Crl.P.No.7487/2020 vide order dated

10.12.2020. No doubt, this Court reserved the liberty to

approach the Trial Court after examination of C.W.6 and after

the examination of C.W.6, bail petition was filed before the Trial

Court and the same was rejected. When such being the material

available on record, this Court cannot sit and appreciate the

contradictions, which have been pointed out by the learned

counsel for the petitioner before this Court and this Court cannot

usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court appreciating the evidence

of the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel for the State

submits that the witnesses have supported the case of the

prosecution. Some of the witnesses have been examined before

the Trial Court and yet to complete the evidence of prosecution.

7. The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of

MAMTA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND

ANOTHER passed in Crl.A.No.878/2022 vide order dated

24.05.2022, held that an important circumstance which should

have, but has not been taken into consideration by the High

Court is that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. The

release of the second respondent on bail, at this stage, would

run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. The apprehension of the

appellants and of the prosecution that the witnesses may be

tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance.

8. Having considered the material available on record

and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra

and the remaining witnesses have to be examined before the

Trial Court and when such being the case, Court cannot usurp

the jurisdiction of the Trial Court appreciating the contradictions,

omissions and commissions under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

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

following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected. However, the Trial Court is

directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible since some

of the witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD