Court refused to enlarge petitioners on bail in a successive petition where previous bail was misused. Trial, nearing conclusion, to be expedited within three months. Petition dismissed.
Petition dismissed; trial court directed to conclude trial within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100996 OF 2022
BETWEEN :
... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI. B. C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE]
2
AND :
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH ALWANDI P.S) REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.17/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOPPAL, IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.1/2014 REGISTERED IN ALWANDI POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES 395, 120(B) OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION PERTAINING TO DHARWAD BENCH COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a successive bail petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 who are facing trial in Sessions Case No.17/2014, pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 120B of IPC.
3
at the fag end and only 5 witnesses have to be examined namely CWs.1, 4, 13, 16 and 17. In that view of the matter, it may not be conducive to enlarge the petitioners on bail at this stage. However, since the petitioners are in judicial custody, the trial Court is directed to expedite and
4
conclude the trial as far as possible, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observation, the petition is dismissed.
[Sd/-] JUDGE
RJ/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners should be enlarged on bail in a case facing charges for sections 395 and 120B of IPC.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial given the petitioners are in judicial custody.
Whether the petitioners absconding history and likelihood of fleeing from justice is relevant for bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M. SHANKAR
TIRUPATHI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
