w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shiva @ Shivu @ T.D. Shivaraju v/s The State of Karnataka, Rep. By The Special Public Prosecutor, Bangalore

    Criminal Petition No. 482 of 2021

    Decided On, 22 February 2022

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

    For the Petitioner: B.L. Sanjeev, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, V.S. Vinayaka, HCGP, N. Tejas, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.444/2018 (S.C.No.65/2019) of Maddur P.S., Mandya District for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120b, 201 read with 149 of IPC.)

1. This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.444/2018 of Maddur Police Station, Mandya District, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 146, 148, 341, 307, 302, 120B, 201 read with 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. This petition is a successive bail petition filed by accused No.4. The sum and substance of the allegation against this petitioner is that he inflicted injury with knife along with other assailants and this petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.4807/2019 and this Court rejected the bail petition. Now the petitioner is before this Court on the ground that there was a delay in commencement of trial.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident was taken place on 24.12.2018 and the charge-sheet was filed on 09.03.2019 and the trial has not been commenced. The learned counsel submits that accused Nos.7 and 2 have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 20.10.2020 and 26.07.2019 and it takes longer time for completion of trial and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MAHESH KUMAR BHAWSINGHKA v. STATE OF DELHI reported in (2000) 9 SCC 383 , wherein the Apex Court directed to complete the trial within three months and if trail is not completed, directed the Trial Judge to release the appellant on bail on executing a bond.

6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VIVEK KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. reported in (2001) SCC Crl. 416, wherein it is observed that the offences are under Sections 307 and 395 of IPC and the accused is languishing in jail from 04.04.1998 for almost 2 years and hence ordered to release him on bail.

7. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BABBA ALIAS SHANKAR RAGHUMAN ROHIDA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in (2005) 11 SCC 569, wherein it is observed that the accused is in custody for more than 12 years and ordered to release him on bail. The learned counsel submits that in the case on hand also from last three years no trial is commenced and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that this petitioner had already approached this Court and this is a successive bail petition and no changed circumstances is made out by the petitioner. Apart from that, there were 25 external injuries and the incident of committing murder is nothing but blood thirsty and there were 10 eye-witnesses to the incident and it is a brutal attack and specific overt-act allegation is made against the petitioner that he inflicted injuries with knife. Hence, there are no grounds to enlarge him on bail.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, this Court has already rejected the bail petition on merits in Crl.P.No.4807/2019. Under the circumstances, this Court has to take note of the changed circumstances to grant the bail. The learned counsel mainly relied upon the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, wherein the Apex Court ordered to release the accused on bail. In one case, the Court has taken note of the fact that the accused was languishing in jail for last 12 years and in one case offence is under Sections 395 and 307 of IPC and other case is TADA case and directed to complete the trial within three months and if not completed the trial, ordered to enlarge on bail, wherein the offences are under Section 120B, 468 and 477A of IPC. When such being the factual aspects of the case, first of all, the offences which have been alleged against the petitioner is offence under Section 307 as well as 302 of IPC and offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and not like the offences under Section 120B, 468, 477A, 307 and 395 of IPC and also TADA offence, wherein also the accused persons were languishing in jail for a period of 12 years and hence bail was granted. But in the case on hand, case is based upon the direct evidence i.e., particularly the eye-witnesses and there are 10 eye-witnesses who witnessed the incident of inflicted injury to the victim with deadly weapon knife and also there were 25 multiple injuries, as a result he succumbed to the injures. When such being the factual aspects of the case, the judgments quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Apart from that, the learned counsel submits that already accused Nos.2 and 7 have been enlarged on bail. On perusal of those orders, there was no any overt-act allegation against accused No.2 and the only allegation against accused No.7 was that he had supplied clothes after destroying the blood stained clothes of the accused person and that attr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

acts Section 201 of IPC. When such being the factual aspects of the case, those orders will not come to the aid of the petitioner. In the absence of any changed circumstances, non-commencement of trial from 2019 after filing of the charge-sheet is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail when serious offence of taking the life of the victim is alleged against the petitioner herein. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to entertain the successive bail petition. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is rejected.
O R