Karnataka High Court
Dada Sab @ Datu vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:611
CRL.P No. 13472 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13472 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. DADA SAB @ DATU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
DONABAGATHATTA VILLAGE
BHADRAVATHI TALUK
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-01
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY AREHALLI POLICE
HASSAN DISTRICT
Digitally signed REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
by DEVIKA M HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560 001
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K.NAGESWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL
IN S.C.NO.248/2021 (CR.NO.14/2021) FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC BY THE AREHALLY
P.S. HASSAN AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASASN IN
S.C.NO.248/2021.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:611
CRL.P No. 13472 of 2024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. This is a successive bail petition and earlier this
Court in Crl.P.No.4968/2022 rejected the bail petition on
the ground that there is a specific overt act allegation
against the petitioner that he inflicted injury with club and
cause of death is also on account of head injury. This
Court made an observation taking into note of statements
of PW2 to PW10 corresponds with nature of injuries and
when direct evidence is available before the Court, it is not
fit case to exercise the power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C
and rejected the same. Now, the counsel appearing for the
petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner is
in custody from 3½ years and some of the witnesses have
been examined that is CW2 to CW10. The counsel also
NC: 2025:KHC:611
submits that when the material eye witnesses have been
examined before the Court, no chances of tampering the
prosecution witness.
3. In support of his argument he relied upon the
judgment reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 in case of Union
of India V/s K.A.Najeeb and brought to notice of this
Court paragraph No.15 of the judgment with regard to
keeping the accused in custody for a longer period wherein
the Court has observed that the accused is in custody from
more than 4 ½ years.
4. The counsel also relied upon the order passed
by this Court in Crl.A.No.1741/2022 dated 19.01.2023
and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.6
wherein an observation is also made with regard to relying
upon the judgment in case of Union of India V/s
K.A.Najeeb.
5. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court
the judgment reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1268 in
case of Praveen Rathore V/s State of Rajasthan and
NC: 2025:KHC:611
another and brought to notice of this Court paragraph
Nos.5 to 7 wherein also an observation is made that out of
76 witnesses, 53 witnesses have been examined before
the Trial Court. The counsel also brought to notice of this
Court the order passed by this Court Crl.P.No.5896/2020
dated 09.04.2021 wherein also an observation is made
that more than 4 years, he has been in custody and he
may be enlarged on bail.
6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for
respondent would submits that witnesses who have been
examined before the Trial Court have supported the case
of the prosecution and remaining witnesses going to be
examined before the Trial Court in a time bound period if
any direction is given. The Trial Court has to appreciate
the evidence available on record.
7. Having heard the petitioner's counsel and also
the counsel appearing for the respondent and taking into
note of reason given by this Court while rejecting the bail
petition in paragraph No.6 wherein specific overt act
NC: 2025:KHC:611
allegation is made against this petitioner that he inflicted
injury with the club on his head. The cause of death is also
on account of head injury and also taken note of
statement of CW2 to CW10 who are the eye witnesses in
considering the direct evidence against the petitioner,
rejected the same. Now, it is not in dispute that CW2 to
CW10 who are the eye witnesses have been examined
before the Court and remaining other witnesses have to be
examined. The judgments which have been referred
before the Court almost 4½ years in all the judgments and
in the case already trial has been commenced and major
witnesses have been examined and taking into note of the
said fact into consideration and also the principles laid
down in the judgment referred supra, it is appropriate to
direct the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within 6
months from today recording the evidence of remaining
witnesses.
8. Both the prosecution and defense are directed
to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case within a
NC: 2025:KHC:611
time bound period of 6 months. Accordingly, the petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
RHS
