Karnataka High Court
Sri Praveen Alias Masalawala Chatur S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
CRL.P No. 102748 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102748 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. PRAVEEN @ MASALAWALA CHATUR
S/O. PRAKASH CHATUR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O:2369, KACHERI ROAD,
SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI,
TAL/DIST: BELAGAVI,
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM, SR. COUNSEL, FOR
MS. DIVYA R. BALEHITTAL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
SWAPNA V
Location: high THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
court of (VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION, DHARWAD)
karnataka
BY CHIEF INVESTIGATION OFFICER,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM,
CID OFFICE, BENGALURU.
(BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ASHOK N. NAIK, SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO DIRECT THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED
NO.3 IN CRIME NO. 142/2015 OF VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 120(B), 109, 449, 302, 201
AND 35 OF IPC R/W SEC. 25(1)(A), 25(1)(B), 27(1) OF INDIAN
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
CRL.P No. 102748 of 2024
ARMS ACT 1959 BEFORE THE COURT OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD IN SC NO. 02/2020 ON SUCH TERMS
AND CONDITIONS. THE BAIL APPLICATION HAS FILED BY THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. IN CRL.MISC
NO. 249/2023 BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD HAS BEEN REJECTED.
THIS CRL.P.,COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking
grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime
No.142/2015 of Vidyagiri Police Station, pending in
S.C.No.02/2020, on the file of the learned IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Dharwad registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 449, 302, 201 and 35
of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read with Sections
25(1)(A), 25(1)(B), 27(1) of Indian Arms Act, 1959, on the
basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Smt
Rupadarshi Kinagi.
2. Heard Sri. Arun Shyam, Senior Advocate for
Ms.Divya R. Balehittal, learned counsel for the petitioner and
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
Sri. Ashok N Naik, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the
respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of bail under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the
following:
REASONS
4. The petitioner being accused No.3 is seeking grant
of bail. He was apprehended on 31.05.2019 and since then, he
is in judicial custody. It is the contention of the prosecution that
accused Nos. 1 to 6 named in the charge sheet have criminally
conspired and abetted commission of the offence. As part of the
conspiracy, accused No.1 proceeded to the house of the
deceased with a pistol on the motor cycle that was ridden by
the present petitioner. Accused No.1 trespassed into the house
of the deceased and committed culpable homicide by causing
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
murder. The act was committed with criminal knowledge and
intention to eliminate the deceased. Accused No.1 used fire arm
and shot the bullet at the deceased to cause his death.
5. Initially, the FIR came to be registered against
unknown persons on the basis of the first information that was
lodged by the daughter of the deceased. It is stated that the
wife of the deceased had seen the assailant-accused No.1. The
informant and the wife of the deceased have seen the assailant
running away with the pistol. They have also seen a person,
who was waiting with the motor cycle in front of the gate. It is
stated that the said person, who was waiting on the motor
cycle was the petitioner herein and he was identified by the
witnesses. CW-9 is also one of the eye-witness, who is said to
have seen the assailant and the rider of the motor cycle. The
allegations made against the present petitioner and the co-
accused are serious in nature.
6. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner
contended that accused Nos. 4 and 6 have already enlarged on
bail by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2024 passed in
Crl.P.No.101997/2024. The role attributed to accused Nos. 4
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
and 6 are entirely different as it is alleged that they have stolen
the two wheeler and provided the same to be used in
commission of the present offence. Therefore, principle of
parity cannot be applied in favour of the present petitioner.
7. It is to be noticed that the petitioner had initially
approached this Court by filing the petition in
Crl.P.No.101515/2020 and the same came to be dismissed vide
order dated 01.04.2021, holding that serious allegations are
made against all the accused including this petitioner and
therefore, he is not entitled for bail. However, while dismissing
the petition it was observed that the Trial Court to make
earnest efforts to dispose off the matter at the earliest even
though speedy disposal in a time bound manner may be
impracticable. It was specifically observed that the Trial Court
may have pre-trial conference with the Investigating Officer,
Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused to identify
the material witnesses to be examined and the witnesses to be
dropped, if they are only a formal witnesses. It is held that the
Trial Court can also make efforts to find out the documents
which are admitted by both the parties or the documents do
not call for formal proof. It was felt that these efforts on the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
part of the Trial Court with the help of the prosecution will
minimize the time that may be required for recording the
evidence of the charge sheet witnesses. The Investigating
Officer, Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused
were directed to assist the Trial Court in conducting speedy
trial.
8. Once again the petitioner had came before this
Court by filing Crl.P.No.100465/2024, seeking grant of bail and
the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2024.
Since a submission made by learned Special Public Prosecutor
that there is a proposal pending before the State Government
to set up a special Court to try this case expeditiously, it was
held that, if such special Court is established, the examination
of the witnesses which has already began, may speed up. Thus
the petition was dismissed.
9. As per the charge sheet, there are 138 witnesses
cited in support of the case of the prosecution. The trial had
began on 21.11.2021. Till date, only 14 witnesses were said to
have been examined. No pre-trial conference is conducted as
suggested by this Court and no efforts whatsoever appears to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
have been done to speed up the trial. Admittedly no special
Court is established to try the case as was submitted by the
learned prosecutor. The petitioner is in judicial custody since
31.05.2019, 5 years have already lapsed. Completion of the
trial may not be expected in near future. Under such
circumstances, long incarceration of the petitioner in custody,
without there being any positive steps to speed up the trial will
entitle him for grant of bail.
10. Learned senior advocate has referred to the
decision of Hon'ble Apex court in Angela Harish Sontakke
v/s State of Maharashtra1, wherein the accused were
charged for the offence under the provisions of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and inspite of rigor under
Section 43-D(5) of the said Act, the accused was enlarged on
bail, taking into consideration the fact that he has suffered 5
years of incarceration. Similarly in Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe
v/s State of Maharashtra2, the accused were enlarged on
bail considering the fact that prosecution has cited 147
witnesses and the accused was in judicial custody for more
than 4 years. When there are no concrete steps taken by the
(2021) 3 SCC 723
(2021) 3 SCC 725
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
prosecution to expedite the trial, the right to life and liberty of
the accused will be at stake. He cannot be kept behind bars
indefinitely, without there being any progress made in the trial.
11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Vitthal
Damuji Mehere v/s Manik Madhukar Sarve and Others3 to
contend that grant of the bail to the co-accused would not ipso
facto entitle the petitioner to the same. In the present case, the
petitioner is not seeking grant of bail only on the ground of
parity. Even though it is held that the petitioner is not entitle
for grant of bail on the ground of parity, he is entitle for such
relief in view of his long incarceration.
12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also placed
reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Sudha
Singh v/s The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another4 to
highlight the factors that are to be taken into consideration
while considering the bail application of the accused. In
paragraph No.11 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
referred to its earlier decision in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v/s
2024 0 Supreme(SC) 940
4 2021 4 Supreme 13
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
Ashis Chatterjee and Another where 8 factors are
highlighted to be taken into consideration while deciding the
bail petitions. By rejecting the earlier bail petitions, it is already
held that there are prima facie materials against the accused
for having committed the offence. There is no doubt that the
nature of the offence is very serious, which is punishable either
with death or imprisonment for life. But the fact remains that
specific overt-act alleged against the petitioner is that he was
part of the conspiracy and he had ridden the motor cycle as
accused No.1 on the pillion, who was the assailant. Admittedly,
this petitioner is not the assailant.
13. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted
that in a similar case referred to as 'Gauri Lankesh murder
case', the accused were enlarged on bail and they were
felicitated by some organization. Such developments will cause
threat to the safety of the prosecution witnesses and therefore,
the petition is to be dismissed.
14. On facts, it is seen that the provisions of the
Karnataka Control or Organized Crimes Act, 2000 (for short,
'COCA') was invoked in the said Gauri Lankesh murder case,
5 (2010) 14 SCC 496
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
but the said provision is not invoked in the present case. Even
then the accused in that case are enlarged in bail. Moreover,
simply because the accused in the said case were felicitated, it
cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for bail by the
petitioner. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner undertakes not to indulge in any such
activities, which will endanger or pose threat to the prosecution
witnesses. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no
justifiable reason to retain the petitioner in custody when the
prosecution has to examine 138 witnesses out of whom for the
last 3 years only 14 witnesses are examined. The proposal for
establishing the special Court has not given any result till date.
Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to
conditions, which will take care of the interest of the
prosecution.
15. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime
No. 142/2015 of Vidyagiri Police Station, pending in
S.C.No.02/2020, on the file of the learned IV Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, on obtaining the bond in a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court,
subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar
offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper
with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall not indulge in any
activity, which may pose threat to the
prosecution witnesses.
d). The petitioner shall appear before the Court
as and when required.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as
stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the
Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial
Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify
the correctness of the address and authenticity of the
documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a
report may be called for in that regard, which is to be
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15273
submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial
Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for
the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.
Sd/-
(M.G.UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
