Allowed

Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Dec 2023CRL.P/201610/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second successive bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused facing charges of murder and attempts to commit suicide. The court noted severe trial delays despite the accused spending nearly four years in custody, directing authorities to conduct trials on a day-to-day basis.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Sessions Case No. 73/2020 subject to a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties and conditions against tampering with witnesses.

Rajanna Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, R KALABURAGI BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201610/2023 (439)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAJANNA S/O. SABANNA TOBAK, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION LABOURER/COOLIE, R/O: M. HOSALLI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: YADGIRI - 585 202.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE SGO YADGIRI WOMEN PS., REP. BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI – 585 102.

¶14

Digitally signed by BHARATHI H M

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. ANITHA M. REDDY, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS BAIL PETITION AND THEREBY ORDER THE RELEASE OF THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 73/2020 (ARISING OUT OF YADGIRI WOMEN PS CRIME NO.12/2020) PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 366, 376, 306, 506 R/W S.34 IPC IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present petition is a second successive bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.12/2020 of Yadgiri Women P.S. culminated in C.C. No.42/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 366, 376, 306, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶22

On previous occasion, this court on 28.08.2020 has dismissed the bail petition filed by the accused Nos.3 and 4.

¶23

Brief facts of the prosecution case:

¶24

The complainant is uncle of the deceasedVijaylaxmi; as the deceased happens to be the daughterin-law of the complainant, staying in the house of the complainant and deceased was studying in PUC-I year in Govt. P.U. College at Yadgiri. It is stated that, the deceased had failed in one of subjects, therefore on 21.03.2020, went to the College to attend examination of

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶26

the said failed paper. Thereafter, the deceased was disappeared and it was told by one Smt. Kantamma @ Shilpa told the complainant on the next day i.e., 22.03.2020 that he and other persons were searching whereabouts of the deceased, but went in vain, therefore, on 22.03 2020 at 12.15 p.m., a missing complaint came to

¶27

be lodged and in turn same was registered as Crime No.12/2020 before the Yadgiri Women Police Station.

¶28

Further, it is stated that on the same day after lodging of missing complaint before the respondentPolice, the complainant and other relatives and friends went to Amblihal, Mudnoor, Agathirth and Kembhavi villages and searched whereabouts of the deceased, but they did not trace the deceased. But, on the same day at 3.15 p.m., the uncle of the complainant had telephoned to the complainant stating that some two persons have taken the deceased and she was made to leave in her senior uncle's house at 3.10 p.m. and immediately the complainant went therein and saw that the deceased was

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶30

suffering from pains in stomach and legs; and upon enquiry to her, she narrated the incident that was happened against her on 21.03.2020 at 1.25 p.m. and stated that after completion of her examination, came out from the college and the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have kidnapped her and confined her in a house and on that night both accused Nos. 1 and 2 have raped the deceased and on 22.03.2020, at 11.30 a.m. these petitioners being the fathers of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, respectively have taken the deceased in a Car and left her in the house of her senior uncle at 2.30 p.m. and further it is stated that these petitioners have criminally intimidated the deceased stating that if this fact is divulged to anyone else, they would kill the deceased as well as her family members, therefore since the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have spoiled her character and without tolerating humiliation and the incident that occurred against her, she consumed Asian paint and committed suicide and died on the way to the hospital, which led in registration of case in Crime No.12/2020 against the accused persons for the offences

¶31

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶32

punishable under Sections 363, 376, 376A, 376D, 306, 109, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶33

After investigation, the police have filed charge sheet

¶34

against the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 also against this petitioner. It is stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner has committed the offence under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC, whereas as against accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 366, 376, 306, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, as against accused No.2 for the offence under Section 366 and 306 R/W Section 34 of IPC are foisted.

¶35

Learned counsel for the accused No.3 submitted that

¶36

the petitioner is in custody for three years nine months and trial has not yet commenced inspite of legislative mandate and directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further, submitted that as per charge sheet, the accusation against the petitioner is for the offence under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶37

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶38

Therefore, the petitioner has suffered substantial period in the custody and even if the petitioner-accused No.3 is convicted, then the petitioner has already served sentence as under trial prisoner for nearly four years. Further, submitted that the petitioner-accused No.3 is old age person is suffering from old age ailments. Further, submitted that even if, the trial commences and considering the previous date of events since trial has not begun then now onwards also the trial may take some more years. Therefore, when the petitioner has suffered nearly four years imprisonment before trial, the petitioner be released on bail.

¶39

On the other hand, the learned HCGP submitted that the petitioner and accused No.4 have shared common intention along with accused Nos.1 and 2 and this is elicited during the trial and offences alleged are heinous offences. Therefore, prays to dismiss the petition.

¶40

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted detailed synopsis of date of events from the date of alleged offence till 15.11.2023. Upon perusing this and the order sheet maintained by the Sessions Court, the trial has not yet commenced. Upon perusal of the order sheet, the learned Magistrate has taken six months for committing the case to the Sessions Court even though all the accused are in custody. At first stage itself the learned Magistrate has delayed in committing the case to Sessions Court; when all the accused are in custody. On 21.05.2020 the charge sheet is filed but on 25.11.2020 the learned Magistrate has committed the case to Sessions Court. Thereafter also, the chronological events revealed from the order sheet of the Sessions Court that the Sessions Court is not serious in implementing directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. It is incumbent on the Sessions Court to complete the trial as early as possible by holding day to day trial as mandated under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also in catena of decisions has directed the trial shall be

¶42

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶43

conducted on day to day basis. Upon considering the order sheet maintained shows the Sessions Court has not fixed trial on day to day basis and has not mentioned dates of events regarding evidence of witnesses. Furthermore, the concerned SHO of the police station has not made arrangements to produce the accused before the Sessions Court. It is stated that the petitioner and other accused are housed in Central Prison, Kalaburagi. Then the concerned police should have made arrangements for producing the accused through video conference facility, but this is also not done. On most of dates of hearing is fixed by the Sessions Court, the concerned police have not produced all the accused to the Court. This is another reason in causing delay in commencement of trial. Speedy trial is a fundamental right as per Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and

¶44

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶45

others vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna¹

¶46

and also declared in catena of decisions .

¶47

Also upon perusing the order sheet of the Sessions Court, most of the times the witnesses were present, but the Sessions Court has bound over the witnesses. Therefore, it is nothing but causing harassment to the witnesses. Hence for cause of delay, the State is vicariously liable. The SHO of the police station in which crime is registered and charge sheet is filed is duty bound to make arrangements to produce the accused before the Court for trial. Hence, police and Sessions Court shall follow directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court to conduct the trial on day to day basis and also to follow the legislative mandate under Section 309 of Cr.P.C.

¶48

Certain directions are necessary in this regard:

¶49

1 (1980) 1 SCC 98

¶50

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶51

i) It is the duty of the Station House Officer of the Police Station to produce the accused before the Court regularly on all the dates of trial fixed, when the accused are in custody.

¶52

ii) It is not the responsibility of the Superintendent of Prison/Jail to produce the accused who are in the custody, before the Court. Their responsibility is to house the accused in prison.

¶53

iii) The Superintendent of Police of the District is directed to monitor/supervise whether the Station House Officer of the Police Station are producing the accused before the Court who are in the custody. The Superintendent of Police shall obtain report from the Police Station in his District to observe whether any lapse is committed by the concerned Police to

¶54

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶55

produce the accused before the Court who are in the custody.

¶56

iv) The Sessions Judge shall be sensitive in complying legislative mandate as per Section 309 of Cr.P.C. and directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Akil alias Javed vs. State (NCT of Delhi)² .

¶57

v) The Sessions Courts are directed to conduct trial on day to day basis in a week by fixing the dates of trial and numbers of witnesses to be examined on each day according to the size of deposition of witnesses.

¶58

vi) The Superintendent of Police of the District may also take help of Armed Reserved Police in co-ordination with them for

¶59

2 (2013) 7 SCC 125

¶60

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶61

production of the accused before the Court

¶62

who are in the custody.

¶63

vii) If for any reason which is not feasible for Police to produce accused before the Court, then the accused are to be produced through the Video Conference facility.

¶64

viii) In this regard the Sessions Court and the Police shall be sensitive and duty bound not to cause delay in the trial by making use of Video Conferencing facility.

¶65

The petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2020 for nearly four years. The offence alleged against the petitioner as per charge sheet under Sections 306 and 506 R/w 34 of IPC. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offences punishable under Section 306 is ten years of imprisonment. Now the petitioner has already suffered pre-trial imprisonment nearly four years. Therefore,

¶66

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶67

considering the circumstances above stated, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

a) The Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 of

¶70

Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed .

¶71

b) The petitioner/accused No.3 is enlarged on bail in S.C.No.73/2020 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge at Yadagiri, subject to

¶72

following conditions:

¶73

CONDITIONS

¶74

i) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

¶75

ii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶76

14 - NC: 2023:KHC-K:9311 CRL.P No. 201610 of 2023

¶77

iii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall attend the

¶78

Court regularly on all the dates of hearing, without fail and shall co-operate for speedy trial of the case.

¶79

iv) If the petitioner/accused No.3 fails to appear before the Court on two consecutive dates of hearing, then it may entail cancellation of liberty granted by this order.

¶80

SD/JUDGE

¶81

HMB/- Upto para 6 SSP/- Para 7 to end List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajanna v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr.Murtuza Baig S/O Usman Baig, Vs Samiulla S/O S.A. Najeer Ahammad

Belgaum Urban Development Authority Vs Sri.Vasant Kallappa Jadhav

The Manager Vs Leema Natal Baik Kom Santan

Smt.Lalithamma D/O Late K. Hanumanthappa Vs Sri.Laleppa S/O Late K. Hanumanthappa

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Ningappa S/O. Nagangouda Patil

Smt.Geeta W/O Muttanna @ Muttappa Karekalla Vs Smt.Preeti W/O Bhavanishankar