Karnataka High Court
Sri Rishi vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5260
CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13529 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI RISHI
S/O RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/A NO.71, 10TH 'A' CROSS,
SHIVA REDDY LAYOUT,
NAGANATHAPURA,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
BANGALORE - 560 100
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. KALPANA P V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF PARAMPARA AGRAHARA
KARNATAKA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483
BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN CR.NO.214/2020 AND S.C.NO.29/2021 FOR THE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5260
CRL.P No. 13529 of 2024
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 115 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2. This bail petition is filed by accused no.2 and
this is a successive bail petition. Earlier, this petitioner
approached this Court in crime stage in
Crl.P.No.7476/2021 and same was rejected vide order
dated 12.01.2022 and subsequently, after filing of charge
sheet also filed petition and the same also dismissed. Now,
the petitioner again approached this Court on the ground
that some of witnesses have been examined and out of
that, some of them have supported the case of the
prosecution and some of them have not supported the
case of the prosecution. The counsel for the petitioner
would vehemently contend that this petitioner is in
NC: 2025:KHC:5260
custody from 4½ years and accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have
already enlarged on bail. In support of her arguments,
relied upon the judgment reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 in
the case of SANJAY CHANDRA vs CENTRAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION wherein it is held that gravity of
alleged offence, severity of punishment prescribed in law,
both parametes ought to be taken into consideration
simultaneously. Gravity alone cannot be decisive ground
to deny bail. Competing factors to be balanced by Court
while exercising its discretion. Protection of personal
liberty against securing attendance of accused at trial,
presumed innocence till a person is convicted.
3. The counsel also relied upon the judgment
reported in AIR 2023 SC 2149 in the case of NITISH
CHAUHAN vs STATE OF U.P. wherein an observation is
made that accused were in custody for nearly two years
and four months, case was at stage of trial, two witnesses
were examined while 26 more witnesses were proposed to
be examined by prosecution, order denying bail is set
NC: 2025:KHC:5260
aside and bail granted subject to conditions as may be
stipulated by Trial Court.
4. The counsel also relied upon the judgment
reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of DATARAM
SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
wherein discussed that factors and considerations for grant
or refusal of bail, need of humane approach while dealing
with applications for remanding matter to police or judicial
custody, stressed, overcrowding in jails due to non-
adherence to basic principles of criminal jurisprudence
regarding grant of bail and presumption of innocence,
even if grant or refusal of bail is entirely upon discretion of
Judge, it must be exercised in a judicious manner and in a
humane way as such remanding hampers dignity of
accused howsoever poor he might be.
5. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in Crl.A.No.2787/2024 dated
03.07.2024 in the case of JAVED GULAM NABI
SHAIKH vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
NC: 2025:KHC:5260
wherein an observation is made in paragraph 9 that over a
period of time, the Trial Courts and the High Courts have
forgotten a very well settled principle of law that bail is not
to be withheld as a punishment.
6. The counsel referring these judgments would
vehemently contend that the petitioner is entitled or bail.
There are 38 witnesses and out of that, 5 witnesses only
examined and it takes time and this petitioner is in mental
stress and in view of other accused persons who are
released were facing ill-health. Hence, this Court has to
consider the same.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing of the
State would vehemently contend that this Court already
considered the matter on merits after filing of charge
sheet and there is no any changed circumstances and
witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and
some of them have supported the case of the prosecution
and hence, this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the
Trial Court to appreciate the evidence and evidence to be
NC: 2025:KHC:5260
appreciated by the Trial Court and hence, the petitioner is
not entitled for bail.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties and on perusal of the material
available on record, it discloses that, this Court while
considering the earlier bail petition on merits taking into
note of the facts and circumstances of the case held that
the specific overt act allegation is made against this
petitioner that he assaulted the victim on the vital part of
head with machete and also taken note of the PM report
which discloses that the cause of death is also on account
of head injury. When witnesses speak with regard
inflicting of injury with machete by this petitioner and
there are eye-witnesses to the incident and now, the eye-
witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and
some of them have supported the case of the prosecution,
it is not a case to exercise the discretion in favour of this
petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner contend that
PW5 has not supported the case of the prosecution and it
NC: 2025:KHC:5260
takes time for consideration of the matter on merits.
When eye-witnesses have been examined and some of
them have supported the case of the prosecution, the Trial
Court has to appreciate the evidence and this Court cannot
usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court sitting under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
9. This Court having taken note of the fact that
this petitioner is in custody from 4½ years, can direct the
Trial Court to expedite the matter and dispose of the same
not later than six month from the date of receipt of copy
of this order by examining other witnesses in view of the
principles of the judgments referred supra having
considered the material available on record.
10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The * criminal petition is dismissed.
* Corrected vide Chamber Order
dated 12.02.2025
NC: 2025:KHC:5260
The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter
within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
Both the counsels are directed to assist the Trial
Court to dispose of the matter within a time bound period.
Registry is directed to communicate this order to the
concerned Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN
