Karnataka High Court
Preethu @ Preethesh B Sulaya vs State Of Karnataka By on 5 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14219
CRL.P No.2480/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2480/2024
BETWEEN:
PREETHU @ PREETHESH B SULAYA
S/O BHASKARSULAYA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT U.ULLALABAILU
B MANGALORE, SOMESHWARA VILLAGE
ULLALA TALUK, D.K ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N.HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
PUTTUR RURAL POLICE STATION
DAKSHINA KANNADA
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Digitally HIGH COURT BUILDING
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA BENGALURU - 560 001 ...RESPONDENT
Location:
High Court of (BY SMT.SOWMYA R, HCGP)
Karnataka
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.107/2019 (S.C.NO.5024/2019) REGISTERED BY PUTTUR RURAL
POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 504, 341, 302, 212 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON
THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K.,
MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR D.K.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14219
CRL.P No.2480/2024
ORDER
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits copy of the
order sheet in S.C.No.5024/2019.
2. Registry has placed the report of the Presiding
Officer of the trial Court. As per the said report the trial was not
expedited because of absence of co-accused who are on bail, for
want of production of the properties, deputation of the Presiding
Officer for induction training program in Karnataka Judicial
Academy and her maternity leave.
3. This is third successive bail petition filed by the
petitioner seeking bail in S.C.No.5024/2019 on the file of V
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada,
Mangalore. The petitioner is accused No.1 in the said case. He is
facing trial in the said case along with accused Nos.2 to 4 on the
charge that on 03.09.2019 at 11.30 p.m. in front of Sampya
Police Station of Aryapu village, accused Nos.1 to 3 picked up
quarrel with the victim Karthik for silly reasons. It is further
alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 gripped the victim and
accused No.1 stabbed him with knife and committed his murder.
Accused No.4 harbored accused No.3.
NC: 2024:KHC:14219
4. This Court has granted bail to accused Nos.2 to 4 on
the ground that they did not face the allegations of stabbing the
victim. Crl.P.No.2701/2020 and Crl.P.No.4729/2021 filed by the
present petitioner were rejected by this Court considering the
merits. Now the only changed circumstance urged in this
petition is that the petitioner is in judicial custody since
05.09.2019 and the trial has not yet commenced.
5. The copy of the order sheet produced by the
petitioner as well as learned HCGP shows that the trial was
delayed for two years due to Covid-19 pandemic. Thereafter for
sometime the trial was adjourned for production of some
material objects, many times accused Nos.2 to 4 who are
granted bail have not appeared before the Court and few times
the witnesses have not turned up. For the absence of co-
accused, the prosecution cannot be held responsible.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v.
Raneef1. He further submits that if there is delay in concluding
the trial, the accused is entitled to bail. Perusal of para 4 of the
said judgment relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner
(2011) 1 SCC 784
NC: 2024:KHC:14219
himself shows that in deciding the bail applications, the delay in
trial is one of the factor, but other factors also need to be
considered. Considering the merits the petition was rejected
twice. As already noted, the delay was not due to the reluctance
of prosecution. Therefore the said judgment cannot be applied
to the facts of the present case.
7. However, the trial Court cannot postpone the trial for
default of the accused who are on bail. They cannot be
permitted to enjoy the liberty violating the terms of bail granted
to them. Therefore it is made clear that, if the co-accused fail to
appear before the Court, the trial Court shall take coercive steps
against them in accordance with law and expedite the trial. With
such observations, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence
the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
The trial Court is hereby directed to conduct the trial as
expeditiously as possible in the light of the above observations
and conclude the same within six months from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
NC: 2024:KHC:14219
Communicate copy of this order to the trial Court
forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
