Karnataka High Court
Satish vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 December, 2023
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
CRL.P No. 201409 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201409 OF 2023 (439)
BETWEEN:
Satish
S/o. Nagindrappa Pechatti,
Aged About 37 Years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/O Kodadur Village, Tq.Chittapur,
Dist.Kalaburagi-585222.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Baburao Mangane and Sri. Ashok B. Mulage,
Advocates)
And:
Digitally
The State Of Karnataka
signed by
VEENA
through Police,
KUMARI B Sedam Police Station,
Location: High
Court of Sedam Circle,
Karnataka
Dist.Kalaburagi,
Rept.By Addl.SPP,
High Court Of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench-585107.
...Respondent
***
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to allow the petition
and release the accused No.3/petitioner on bail in crime
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
CRL.P No. 201409 of 2023
No.23/2019 of Sedam Police Station, District Kalaburagi, for the
offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 34 of
IPC, pending on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Kalaburagi sitting at Sedam in S.C.No105/2019, in the interest
of justice.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders before the
Principal Bench at Bengaluru, through Video Conference, 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. In spite of granting sufficient opportunities, the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State has not filed his Statement of
Objections, if any.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
- State are not appearing through video conference. No
reasons are forthcoming for their non-appearance in the
matter. Any technical problem for their non-appearance is
also ruled out for the reason that, the learned counsel for
the appellant at Sl.No.2 in the same cause list is appearing
through video conference. Hence, there is no technical
problem or difficulty for the learned counsels from both
sides to appear through video conference in this matter.
4. Considering the fact that this petition is the one
filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., for the relief of bail
and the petitioner requires an early disposal, as such, it is
taken that no arguments were addressed from both side
and the matter is proceeded further.
5. Perused the memorandum of petition wherein the
petitioner has contended that, though it is a successive
bail petition, however, in the previous order, this Court
had directed the Trial Court for a speedy disposal of the
matter, on the other hand, the Trial Court has not followed
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this
Court. Among the 64 charge sheet witnesses, only two
witnesses have been examined till date, as such, it would
take more time to complete the trial. Consequently, the
petitioner, who is in Judicial Custody since four years
seven months, continues to be in Judicial Custody.
6. Stating that he is an agriculturist and the only
male earning member in the family, the petitioner has
sought for allowing the present petition, by enlarging him
on bail.
7. As already observed, the respondent- State has
not filed its Statement of Objections, for the reasons best
known to it.
8. 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
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
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 meanwhile, several criminal
cases were said to have been registered against the
accused persons.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
9. 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.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
10. This is the fourth successive bail petition of the
present petitioner before this Court, after his futile
exercise in the Sessions Judge's Court.
11. The first similar petition of the petitioner came to
be disposed of as not pressed on the date 27-01-2020.
Thereafter, his second similar petition came to be
dismissed as devoid of merit on the date 24-11-2020. The
third similar petition of the petitioner also was disposed of
as devoid of merit on the date 15-12-2021, as such, this is
the fourth similar petition of the present petitioner.
12. In the memorandum of the present petition, the
petitioner has referred to the 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. Even in his third
successive bail petition also, which came to be disposed of
on 15-12-2021, referring to the said judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, he had contended that, due to the
delay in conducting the trial, the accused (petitioner) was
not to be continued in the Judicial Custody for a long time.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
While disposing of the said petition on the date
15-12-2021, this Court had anticipated that there was all
the possibility of the Sessions Judge's Court/Trial Court
completing the process of trial, at the earliest point of
time.
However, according to the petitioner, the Trial Court
has not complied the said direction. Still, considering the
nature of allegations made against the present petitioner
and the averments made against him, and also for the
detailed reasons given to that effect in the order dated
24-11-2020 passed by this Court in the previous petition
in Criminal petition No.200309/2020, I am of the view that
there is no change in the circumstance till today, except
that the trial is to be still continued. Under the said
circumstance, merely because there is said to be some
delay, the same cannot be the sole ground for the
enlargement of the petitioner on bail, particularly, under
the facts and circumstances of the present case and the
nature of the offences alleged against the accused
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
petitioner, which inter alia includes Section 302 of the
IPC.
13. Under the above said circumstances, in the
absence of any change in the circumstance, I am of the
opinion that, no fresh grounds are made out in the petition
for enlarging the petitioner on bail, however, his
apprehension that the trial may further be delayed can be
checked by requesting the learned Sessions Judge's Court
for early completion of the trial in the matter.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
[i] The present Criminal Petition stands
dismissed as devoid of merit;
[ii] The learned Sessions Judge's Court where
the matter is said to be pending is requested to take
up the trial on day-to-day basis and complete the
entire trial of the matter and dispose of the case on
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9098
its merit, within a period of eight months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
[iii] The learned Sessions Judge's Court is also
requested to keep submitting the progress report of
the matter, at least, once in fifteen (15) days to the
registry of this Court, which, in turn, shall bring the
same to the notice of the Court.
Registry to transmit a copy of this order to the
concerned Sessions Judge's Court, where the matter is
pending immediatly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BMV*
