Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1913 (KAR)

Harish @ Bheema v. State Of Karnataka State

2020-09-30

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed by petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.202/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC by Subramanyapura Police Station. 2. The prosecution case is that on the complaint filed by Sri.Sachin K., the Police have registered the case. The allegations are that on 14.07.2019 at 5:00 p.m. when the complainant was going near Prarthana School at Chikkallasandra near Tirumala Mess, there was a quarrel between the petitioner-accused and his friend deceased Kishor. When the complainant interfered to prevent them from quarrelling, the petitioner-accused assaulted him with beer bottle on his head, then he stabbed the deceased Kishor with the beer bottle on his neck, thereby committed the murder of Kishor and attempted to commit murder of the complainant. The bail application filed by the petitioner is rejected by LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru City. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, this Court gone through the charge sheet records. 4. The complaint is filed by the victim, who has seen the petitioner-accused assaulting another victim by name Kishor. The medical records confirm that it was a homicidal death. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion after giving specific finding about the charge sheet records as the same is not necessary while considering the bail application. 5. The prosecution has made efforts to collect the necessary evidence to prove the involvement of the accused in commission of the offence. 6. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-accused is in judicial custody for a long period and charges are also not framed. In the event of rejecting the bail application, a direction may be issued for early disposal of the matter. 7. Merely because the petitioner is in judicial custody for a long period or the period of detention undergone by the petitioner-accused are likely of concluding the matter in the near future is not sufficient to enlarge the accused on bail. The mere fact that the accused has undergone incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. The mere fact that the accused has undergone incarceration by itself would not entitle the accused to be enlarged on bail. The fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded at an early date would not be sufficient to grant bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with witnesses by the petitioner-accused or causing threat to the injured complainant. Thus, there are no valid grounds for granting bail. Accordingly, the criminal petition is rejected. The present case is of the year 2019. The trial could not be commenced at an early date because of COVID-19 pandemic situation. Hence, on reopening of the Court, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.