Disposed

Loeksh @ Batani v. State by Pulakeshinagara Police Station

Karnataka HC1 Oct 2021CRL.P/4618/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a bail petition filed by LOKESH @ BATANI under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder trial. The court refused bail due to unexamined prosecution witnesses but directed the trial court to examine them within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; direction to trial court to examine material witnesses within six months; liberty to file similar bail petition thereafter if not examined.

Loeksh @ Batani Vs State by Pulakeshinagara Police Station — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4618 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

LOKESH @ BATANI S/O MURUGA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT NO.36, SHYMPURA MAIN ROAD NEAR DODDAMMA TEMPLE SHYAMPURA, K G HALLI BENGALURU - 560 005

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.PRASANNA RAO R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE BY PULAKESHINAGARA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.58/2019 (S.C.NO.1099/2019) REGISTERED BY PULAKESHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.58/2019 of Pulakeshinagar Police Station, pending on the file of XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayohall, Bengaluru (CCH-20) in S.C.No.1099/2019, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') on the basis of first information lodged by the informant - B.Raju Asi.

¶20

Heard Sri.Prasanna Rao R, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S.Abhijith, learned Counsel for respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on

¶22

¶23

10.04.2019 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, he has filed similar petition before this Court in Criminal Petition No.7241/2019. The said petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file similar petition after examination of the material witnesses vide order dated 03.12.2019. But, till today, none of the witnesses were examined before the trial Court. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is not required for any other purpose, except to ensure his presence before the trial Court. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are already enlarged on bail. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is required to be enlarged on bail on the principles of parity. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶24

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious

¶25

¶26

allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Earlier petition came to be dismissed with liberty to move the petition after examination of the material witnesses. Admittedly, the material witnesses are not yet examined. C.Ws.3 and 4 are the eye witnesses. C.Ws.11 to 14 are the witnesses for recovery mahazar under which incriminating materials such as weapons and clothes were seized at the instance of the present petitioner. Unless they are examined before the trial Court, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶28

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶29

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the following:

¶30

¶31

R E A S O N S

¶32

The materials on record disclose that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Admittedly, earlier petition filed by the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7241/2019 came to be withdrawn with a liberty to file similar petition after examination of the material witnesses vide order dated 03.12.2019. It is not in dispute that the prosecution witnesses are not yet examined.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the certified copy of the entire order sheet maintained by the trial Court. It discloses that since long neither the petitioner is being produced before the trial Court nor any of the witnesses are examined before the trial Court. However, there is mention regarding COVID-19 restrictions in the form of SOP. But, the same cannot be a reason to detain the petitioner in custody for indefinite period.

¶34

¶35

Learned HCGP submits that the prosecution will

¶36

be able to examine these material witnesses i.e., C.Ws.3 and 4 and C.Ws.11 to 14 within a period of six months.

¶37

Submission of the learned HCGP is placed on record.

¶38

The trial Court with the assistance of the prosecution and the accused is required to complete the examination of the material witnesses within a period of six months from the date on which the order is communicated to the trial Court, failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to move similar petition before this Court seeking bail.

¶39

In view of the above, this petition is disposed of .

¶40

Registry is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court, forthwith.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

NBM

Loeksh @ Batani v. State by Pulakeshinagara Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Loeksh @ Batani v. State by Pulakeshinagara Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Veer @ Veera @ Joseph Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Rasheed Vs the State of Karnataka

Indu Vs Union of India

Chandru @ Anekivi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Ivan Charles Pinto Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashoka S/O Shantappa Vs State of Karnataka