Dismissed

Josephraj @ Joseph v. the State by

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2023CRL.P/633/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition sought regular bail for a charge of murder where the petitioner is an accused with a history of absconding after earlier bail. The court dismissed the petition noting the danger of flight and lack of merit. It directed the trial court to conclude the matter within six months.

What did the court decide?

The bail petition is rejected and the trial court is directed to dispose of the matter within six months.

Josephraj @ Joseph Vs the State by — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 633 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 633 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

JOSEPHRAJ @ JOSEPH AGED 24 YEARS S/O MURUDAS R/AT: 314, 1^ST BLOCK NEAR HOUSE OF GARE MAISTRY MURUGESH BEHIND GOVT SCHOOL BANDEPALYA BENGALURU CITY-560 068

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJESH RAO K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE BY BANDEPALYA P.S., (RECENTLY ESTATBLISHED STATION HENCE THE ABOVE CASE TRANSFERRED FROM MADIWALA TO BANDEPALYA) REPRESENTED BY THE GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA BENGALURU-560 001

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 633 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.648/2015 (CR.NO.1468/2014) OF BANDEPALYA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.143,147,148,307,302 R/W. 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE LXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.1468/2014 of Madivala Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/ State.

¶23

This is a successive bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 before this Court. Earlier this Court rejected the bail petition of this petitioner in Crl.P.No.3562/2020 vide order dated 04.09.2020, in Crl.P.No.5534/2020 vide order dated 12.11.2020 and also in Crl.P.No.4626/2021 vide order dated 15.07.2021.

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 633 of 2023

¶26

This is the fourth petition filed by the petitioner and

¶27

the grounds urged in the fourth petition is that as per the complaint, the incident was not intentional and due to sudden group gang war a life was lost and this petitioner has not involved in the case. The prosecution also examined the material witness and no witness has supported the case as against this petitioner. He is aged about 29 years and he is in custody from 26.08.2019 and only the ground for rejection of his earlier bail petitions is that he was jumped the bail. Hence, it requires interference.

¶28

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the eye witness, who has been examined before the Trial Court though he had turned hostile in the chief-examination and in the cross-examination answers are elicited with regard to participation of this petitioner in crime and also witness admits that he only gave the complaint against this petitioner and also against other two assailants. The Trial Court has to appreciate the material available on record and this Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court with regard to appreciation of

¶29

¶30

CRL.P No. 633 of 2023

¶31

evidence. Hence, no ground is made out. The learned High Court Government Pleader also would submit that this petitioner was absconded in the year 2016 and thereafter with great difficulty, in the year 2019 he was secured and the same has been observed in the earlier orders. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any case.

¶32

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the grounds urged in the petition and also the material available on record, the main contention is that the eye witness, who has been examined before the Trial Court has turned hostile and on perusal of the deposition, though he has turned hostile, the Public Prosecutor has cross examined this witness and also elicited with regard to the participation of this petitioner in the said crime. Apart from that, this Court earlier rejected the bail petitions by taking note of the fact that the bail was granted earlier and thereafter he was jumped the bail. He did not appear before the Court from 2016 and he was secured only in the year 2019. Hence, the Court comes to the conclusion that there are chances of fleeing away from justice, if he is enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been in custody from 26.08.2019.

¶33

5 - CRL.P No. 633 of 2023

¶34

Hence, he prays that this Court has to exercise the discretion. This Court cannot exercise the discretion as and when the petitioner approaches the Court. Earlier he was enlarged on bail, subsequently, he was absconded and thereafter with great difficulty that too after three years he was secured. Now, the trial is going on. Hence, I do not find any ground to exercise the discretion in favour of this petitioner and the Trial Court has to appreciate the evidence available on record. It is rightly pointed out by the learned High Court Government Pleader that this cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Trial Court with regard to appreciation of evidence. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to enlarge him on bail in a successive bail petition.

¶35

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶36

following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The bail petition is rejected.

¶39

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible not later than six months.

¶40

(iii) It is also made clear that the accused shall assist the Trial Court in disposal of the petition without seeking any adjournment and to assist

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 633 of 2023

¶43

to dispose of the matter within the stipulated time.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

CP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Josephraj @ Joseph v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Josephraj @ Joseph v. the State by

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

Jogaiah Vs Krishnappa

Basavegowda Vs N M Prakash

Nethravathi Vs Nagarajagowda

Salman Khan @ Sallu Vs State by

R Sridhar Vs Sri M S Srikrishna

R Sridhar Vs Srikanth Raj G R