Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 68 (KAR)

MARIGOWDA v. STATE

1998-02-03

KUMAR RAJARATNAM

body1998
( 1 ) THE petitioners face grave charges for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 446, 427, 506, 307, 324, 326, 302, I. P. C. read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case is that on 8-7-1996 at about 6. 30 a. m. the complainant lodged a complaint with the Police Sub-Inspector of Doddaballapura Rural Police, alleging that there was an ill-will between Ex-Chairman (A-11) and the deceased. As a result of which, there was some altercations. Following the altercations, the case of the prosecution is that all the accused assaulted the deceased and C. Ws. 2, 10, 11, 14 and 16. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners Mr. H. V. Subramanya, raised the following points: He submitted that the petitioners have been in custody for one year and seven months. He further submitted that even to this day, the case has not been committed to the Sessions Court. There were forty adjournments and in spite of it, the case has not been committed so far. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of Allahabad High Court, reported in Sita Ram v. State of U. P. , 1987 Cri LJ 645. The Allahabad High Court in a case under Section 302, I. P. C. held that speedy trial is required under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court further held that when the Magistrate does not commit the accused to the Sessions Court, for an unduly long time, the accused would be entitled to bail. ( 5 ) IT was submitted in this case forty adjournments had taken place and in spite of it the case was not committed to trial. ( 6 ) THE second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been in custody for one year, seven months and there is no early prospects of the commencement of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of this Court, reported in Akbar @ Egle Mestri v. State of Karnataka, (1993) 4 Kant LJ 184. The Court held that where the accused is kept in custody for an unduly long time without speedy disposal of the trial, the accused would be entitled to bail. And denial of bail would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that where the accused is kept in custody for an unduly long time without speedy disposal of the trial, the accused would be entitled to bail. And denial of bail would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) IT was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first petitioner Marigowda was a brilliant student and had completed his PUC examination with honours and that he is a young person and deserves bail. As far as the second petitioner is concerned, it was submitted that he is suffering from peptic ulcer and cervical spondylitis. ( 8 ) LEARNED HCGP opposes the bail application on the ground that although the FIR did not disclose any overt act by the petitioners against the deceased, the statements have been recorded subsequently from other witnesses implicating the petitioners as having inflicted injuries on the deceased. He also submitted that the learned Magistrate may be directed to commit the case for trial as expeditiously as possible. In these circumstances, he submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to bail. ( 9 ) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP. ( 10 ) THE petitioners have been admittedly in custody for more than one year and seven months. The case has not been committed for trial in spite of forty adjournments. It is also common ground that there is no overt act alleged against the petitioners by the complainant with respect to the attack on the deceased. In these circumstances, the petitioners would be entitled to bail on stringent conditions. ( 11 ) THE petitioners are enlarged on bail on each of them furnishing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in like sum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court (Addl. C. J. M. , Bangalore) and on condition that,- (1) The petitioners shall report before Rajanukunte outpost Police Station once in a week on every Sunday between 10 a. m. and 4 p. m. (2) They shall not leave the Bangalore District: (3) They shall not in any way tamper with the witnesses; (4) They shall be available as and when required by the trial Court. If any of these conditions are violated, the State is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. Petition allowed. If any of these conditions are violated, the State is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .