Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 842 (KAR)

Nanjegowda v. State of Karnataka

2022-07-04

H.P.SANDESH

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in S.C.No.119/2019 (Crime No.23/2019) of Channarayapatna Town Police Station, Hassan, for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. This is a successive bail petition filed by the petitioner before this Court and earlier this Court considered the bail petition in Crl.P.No.6745/2019 vide order dtd. 21/1/2020 and in Crl.P.No.7487/2020 vide order dtd. 10/12/2020. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the prosecution witnesses were examined before the Trial Court and there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and this petitioner is in custody from 3 years 5 months. This Court in Crl.P.No.7487/2020 vide order dtd. 10/12/2020, reserved the liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail before the Trial Court after the examination of C.W.6. The learned counsel submits that after the examination of C.W.6, bail petition was moved before the Trial Court and the Trial Court has rejected the bail petition vide order dtd. 6/12/2021 and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that liberty was given to approach the Trial Court and liberty was already exercised by filing an application and the Trial Court rejected the same. Apart from that, the learned counsel submits that the prosecution witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and all of them have supported the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel submits that it is the case of double murder and no grounds are made out to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, this Court already considered the matter on merits while disposing of Crl.P.No.6745/2019 vide order dtd. 21/1/2020 and Crl.P.No.7487/2020 vide order dtd. 10/12/2020. No doubt, this Court reserved the liberty to approach the Trial Court after examination of C.W.6 and after the examination of C.W.6, bail petition was filed before the Trial Court and the same was rejected. 21/1/2020 and Crl.P.No.7487/2020 vide order dtd. 10/12/2020. No doubt, this Court reserved the liberty to approach the Trial Court after examination of C.W.6 and after the examination of C.W.6, bail petition was filed before the Trial Court and the same was rejected. When such being the material available on record, this Court cannot sit and appreciate the contradictions, which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court and this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel for the State submits that the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Some of the witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court and yet to complete the evidence of prosecution. 7. The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of MAMTA AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER passed in Crl.A.No.878/2022 vide order dtd. 24/5/2022, held that an important circumstance which should have, but has not been taken into consideration by the High Court is that crucial witnesses are yet to be examined. The release of the second respondent on bail, at this stage, would run a grave risk of impeding a fair trial. The apprehension of the appellants and of the prosecution that the witnesses may be tampered with cannot be regarded as lacking in substance. 8. Having considered the material available on record and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra and the remaining witnesses have to be examined before the Trial Court and when such being the case, Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court appreciating the contradictions, omissions and commissions under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as early as possible since some of the witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court.