Karnataka High Court
Ashoka vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2024
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:43887
CRL.P No. 9807 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9807 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. ASHOKA
S/O. LATE BABA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT BBC COLONY,
HUNSUR TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M BANGALORE-560 001.
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) OF PRAYING TO RELEASE HIM ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.313/2021 (SC.NO.76/2022) OF HUNSUR P.S.,
MYSURU DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU,
SITTING AT HUNSUR, BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:43887
CRL.P No. 9807 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This is a fourth successive bail petition filed under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in
Crime No.313/2021 of Hunusur Rural Police Station, Hunusur
Sub-Division, Mysuru District for the offence punishable under
Sections 120B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State.
3. This Court earlier rejected bail petitions of this
petitioner on merits. Now, the very contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that he was
arrested in the year 2021 and trial has been commenced and
seven witnesses have been examined and prosecution has cited
52 witnesses and yet to examine other witnesses and it takes
time. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that
there is no need of custodial trial of the petitioner and once the
investigation has been completed, question of tampering the
prosecution witnesses does not arise.
NC: 2024:KHC:43887
4. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court as well as this Court regarding grant of bail
taking note of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the
judgment of SHEIK JAVED IQBAL @ ASHFAQ ANSARI @
JAVED ANSARI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH in
CRL.A.NO.2790 OF 2024, the Apex Court exercised the
discretion in a case for the offence punishable under Sections
121A, 489B and 489C of IPC and taken note of the fact that
appellant was in custody for eight years. Hence, prays this
Court to exercise the discretion in the case on hand in favour of
the petitioner.
5. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in ANGELA HARISH SONTAKKE VS. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA reported in (2021) 3 SCC 723 and brought
to notice of this Court Paragraph No.3, wherein an observation
is made that petitioner is in custody since from 2011 for five
years and trial is yet to commence.
6. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in SAGAR TATYARAM GORKHE AND ANOTHER
VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2021) 3 SCC
NC: 2024:KHC:43887
725 and brought to notice of this Court observation made in
Paragraph No.3, wherein in the said case there were 147
witnesses and the petitioner was in custody from four years.
7. The counsel also relied upon the order passed in
NITISH ADHIKARY ALIAS BAPAN VS. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 2068 in NDPS
case for the offence punishable under Section 21(c) and 37 of
NDPS Act, wherein the accused was in custody for one year,
seven months.
8. The counsel also relied upon the order passed in
CHITTA BISWAS ALIAS SUBHAS VS. STATE OF WEST
BENGAL reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 1536, wherein
the offence is invoked under Section 21-C of NDPS Act and
already four witnesses have been examined out of ten
witnesses.
9. The counsel also relied upon the order passed by
co-ordinate bench of this Court in CRL.P.NO.10343/2023
C/W. CRL.P.NO.9828/2023, wherein also NDPS offences are
invoked and the petitioner were in custody from 2021.
NC: 2024:KHC:43887
10. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the
Apex Court in RABI PRAKASH VS. THE STATE OF ODISHA
reported in 2023 LIVE LAW (SC) 533 with regard to NDPS
offences and the petitioner was in custody for more than 3½
years.
11. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH VS. STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in 2024 SCC
ONLINE 1693 and brought to notice of this Court Paragraph
nos.7 and 8 and also Paragraph No.19, wherein the Apex Court
has discussed with regard to fundamental right of an accused
to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Learned counsel for the appellant relying upon
these judgments would contend that when the petitioner is in
custody from 2021, the petitioner is entitled for bail.
12. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for the
respondent-State would submit that this Court already
considered the matter on merits and the fact that petitioner is
in custody from 2021 is not a ground to seek bail, since the
offences invoked against the petitioner are 120B, 302 and 201
NC: 2024:KHC:43887
read with Section 34 of IPC. She also would submit that case
rests upon circumstantial evidence and body was recovered at
the instance of this petitioner and had managed to commit the
murder and dispose of the body and the witnesses, who have
been examined before the Trial Court have supported the case
of the prosecution and this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction
of the Trial Court and appreciate the evidence.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Additional SPP for the respondent-State, it is not in
dispute that this is a fourth successive bail petition. It is also
settled law, while considering successive bail petition, the Court
has to take note of changed circumstances while granting bail
and exercising discretion. No doubt, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court,
almost all are with regard to NDPS case. In the judgment of the
Apex Court in SHEIKH JAVED IQBAL's Case, the Apex Court
while exercising the discretion, taken note of the fact that the
petitioner was in custody for eight years for the offence
punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of IPC and in
ANGELA HARISH SONTAKKE's case, no trial had
commenced, even though accused was in custody from 2011
NC: 2024:KHC:43887
for a period of almost five years. In ANGELA HARISH
SONTAKKE's case and factual aspects of the case on hand is
different and in the case on hand, though the petitioner was
taken to custody in 2021, only seven witnesses have been
examined and all of them have supported the prosecution and
the same is not disputed by the petitioner.
14. When this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the
Trial Court to appreciate the evidence and only on the ground
of delay in trial, this Court cannot exercise the discretion in the
case on hand, even though case was registered in 2021 and
trial has been commenced and seven witnesses have been
examined. When such being the case, the principles laid down
in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner will not come to the aid of the petitioner. Hence, I do
not find any ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail exercising
the discretion in successive bail petition.
Accordingly, the bail petition is rejected.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
