Dismissed

Ramesh Alias Bellatur Ramesh v. State by Avalahalli Ps

Karnataka HC17 Feb 2021CRL.P/7308/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a successive bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Rejecting the claim of trial delay and fresh circumstances, the court held that co-accused non-appearance does not justify bail for the petitioner. The court found no new grounds and noted the petitioner remains a beneficiary of the disputed property.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's successive bail petition is dismissed.

Ramesh Alias Bellatur Ramesh Vs State by… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7308/2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

RAMESH ALIAS BELLATUR RAMESH S/O SUBHANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, #G17, KEERTHI HIGH APARTMENTS, BELLATHUR, KADUGODI POST, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALU, BANGALORE 560 067.

¶7

.. PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SANTOSH, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE BY AVALAHALLI PS REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE 56001

¶11

.. RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.355/2018 OF AVALAHALLY P.S. BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467 READ WITH 120B OF IPC PENDING BEFORE HE LEARNED IX ADDITIONAL DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL, BANGALORE IN S.C.NO.47/2019 BY IMPOSING CONDITIONS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE..

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 12.02.2021 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING AT DHARWAD BENCH THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This successive bail petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting regular bail in Crime No.355/2018 registered by the Avalahally Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 417, 471 419, 420, 465, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity) pending on the file of learned IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural, Bangalore in S.C. No.47/2019.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged. He has been falsely implicated only on the voluntary statement of the coaccused. The investigation is completed long back. Charge sheet has been filed. In spite of the case being pending for two years, trial has not commenced. Even in the criminal miscellaneous petition, the learned trial Judge has held that charges could not be framed and trial is held up. Therefore, the accused is entitled for

¶19

¶20

bail. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. K.A. NAJEEB in Crl.A.No.98/2021 . Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶21

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected to the bail petition and contended that this Court in the earlier bail petition of the petitioner has considered the entire material on record and rejected the same. The petitioner has subsequently moved another bail petition in Criminal Petition No.1209/2019 which was dismissed on 08.05.2019. Subsequently another petition was filed by the accused in the year 2020 which also came to be dismissed and that there is no changed circumstances for granting bail. Hence, prayed for dismissing the bail petition.

¶22

Upon considering the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and on perusal of the material placed on records, admittedly, this Court rejected the bail petition of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1209/2019 on 08.05.2019 by considering the entire material on record and finding prima facie case being made out

¶23

¶24

against the petitioner as such as CC TV footage record, obtaining the death certificate of the deceased and getting the property in his name and that the petitioner is the beneficiary of the property. Subsequently, the petitioner again filed a petition through some other advocate and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 26.08.2020 and now the petitioner has filed the successive third bail petition through an advocate Muzaffar Ahmed, Noorain Legal Resolutions and subsequently, changed the earlier advocate by engaged the present advocate, during the pendency of this petition.

¶25

Learned counsel relied on the only ground that in spite of filing the charge-sheet, there is delay in completion of trial.

¶26

I have perused the observations made by the trial Court wherein the trial Court has observed that the accused, who are already granted bail, are not appearing before the Court ad they are obstructing the Court from conducting trial. On perusal of the said observation it reveals that, the co-accused who are the henchmen of this petitioner, though obtained bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court, but they are not appearing before the Court regularly and thereby the trial Court is not able to commence

¶27

¶28

the trial by framing charge. Therefore, when the co-accused and henchmen of this petitioner are purposely delaying the process of the Court that cannot be said to be an additional ground for the petitioner to seek/grant bail. The accused are purposely and intentionally delaying the process of the Court. Therefore, the prosecution should have filed an application for cancellation of bail of the co-accused or the trial Court should have secured the presence of those co-accused by taking coercive methods for the purpose of conducting the trial. Such being the case, merely there is delay in conducting trial, which is due to non-appearance of the co-accused, may not be an additional ground for this petitioner to seek/grant bail. The offence is heinous one. The material placed on record clearly goes to show that the petitioner is involved in the commission of the offence and if the petitioner is granted bail, definitely, he may delay the process and the petitioner tampering with prosecution witnesses cannot be ruled out. Changing advocate after another advocate is not a fresh ground.

¶29

Therefore, I hold that there is no fresh ground made out by the petitioner for granting bail.

¶30

¶31

Accordingly, the successive bail petition of the petitioner is dismissed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

kmv

Ramesh Alias Bellatur Ramesh v. State by Avalahalli Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Alias Bellatur Ramesh v. State by Avalahalli Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanagoudar S/O. Sanaganagouda Patil Vs Basanagouda S/O. Mallikarnunagouda Patil

Arjun Gundu Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Rajeev B Kalenatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Jagadeesh S/O.Late Eswarappa, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Suresh S/O. Tippanna Gudli Vs the State of Karnataka

Dinesh Alias Balu S/O Tukarm Mirashi Vs the State of Karnataka