Disposed

Sri Nagaraja R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023CRL.P/6632/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, accused in a murder and affray case, sought bail after languishing in custody for over four years. The High Court disposed of the bail petition, directing the Trial Court to expedite the trial within six months. It also directed Jail authorities to ensure regular production of the accused.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with direction to Trial Court to dispose of the main case within six months and directive to Jail authorities to produce accused regularly.

Sri Nagaraja R Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39972 CRL.P No. 6632 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6632 OF 2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI NAGARAJA R AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O RAMAIAH REDDY.

¶7

SRI SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O RAMAIAH REDDY.

¶8

BOTH ARE R/A NO.005 GOLDEN RAYS APARTMENT NEAR CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI TIGADI VEERANA GADIGEPPA, ADV., FOR

¶11

SRI SURESH S, ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by B A KRISHNA KUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BEGUR P.S BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI SHYAM SUNDAR, SPECIAL PROSECUTOR)

¶17

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THIS ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 / PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.117/2019 IN S.C.NO.95/2020 OFFENCE P/U;S 447, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 341, 307 AND 504 R/W 149 OF IPC, OF THE BEGUR POLICE STATION, PENDING BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT THE LXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-69).

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:39972 CRL.P No. 6632 of 2023

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Accused nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.95/2020 pending before the Court of LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.117/2019 registered by the Beguru Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 341, 307, 504 R/w 149 of IPC are before this Court seeking regular bail.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶24

Brief facts of the case which are necessary for

¶25

disposal of this case are :

¶26

The father of the complainant had purchased a property at Devarachikkanahalli in the year 1992 and in respect of the said property there was a dispute between the deceased and the accused persons. On 16.07.2019 at about 1.20 p.m, the father of the complainant along with his friend and other had gone near the land in dispute and the accused persons who were waiting there with a intention to commit the murder of complainant's father and the person who had accompanied him had assaulted the complainant's father and his friend Prakash.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39972 CRL.P No. 6632 of 2023

¶28

In the said incident, complainant's father Anand Reddy and his friend Prakash had died. The petitioners who were arrayed as accused nos.1 and 2 in the FIR were arrested in the case and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed totally against 5 accused persons and the case is now pending before the sessions Court in S.C.No.95/2020.

¶29

The bail application of the petitioners filed before the Sessions Court in S.C.No.95/2020 was rejected on 09.06.2023. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody from 16.07.2019. The charges have been framed in the case only on 19.08.2023. There is no chance of trial being complete in the near future. The petitioners have not contributed for the delay in trial. They are in custody for last more than 4 years. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that the delay is as a result of Covid-19 restriction and also for the reason that accused persons were not produced

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:39972 CRL.P No. 6632 of 2023

¶34

before the court by the jail authorities. The accused persons have filed repeated bail applications before the Trial Court which is also one of the reason for delay in trial. The accused persons have sought adjournments before the Trial Court for arguing at the stage of Hearing Before Charge. Only 49 charge sheet witnesses are cited in the case. All of them are not required to be examined. Therefore, if six months time is granted, the case itself could be disposed of before the Trial Court.

¶35

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶36

that the petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the main case within a period of six months.

¶37

The submissions made by learned counsels on both sides is placed on record.

¶38

Undisputedly, the petitioners herein are in custody

¶39

for more than 4 years. Accused no.3 who is the father of the petitioners had died while he was in custody. Considering the long period of incarceration of the accused persons in jail and also having regard to the fact that only limited number of charge sheet witnesses are required to be examined in the

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:39972 CRL.P No. 6632 of 2023

¶42

present case, I am of the view that it is fit case wherein the Trial Court is required to be directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case at the earliest.

¶43

Learned counsels appearing for the parties have made a submission that charges in the case has been already framed on 19.08.2023. Under these circumstances, the following :-

¶44

: ORDER ::

¶45

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial in S.C.No.95/2020 and dispose of the main case within a period of six months from the next date of hearing before the Trial Court, provided the accused and the learned counsel appearing for the accused cooperate with the trial court for early disposal of the case.

¶46

The Trial Court shall not give unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for both the parties have made submission

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:39972 CRL.P No. 6632 of 2023

¶50

that accused persons who are in custody are not being produced before the court and therefore there is a delay in trial.

¶51

This Court has noticed that in many cases, the trial is being delayed for the reason that accused are not produced before the Court by jail authorities. Therefore, the concerned Jail authorities in the present case are directed to keep the accused present before the court either in person or virtually on all dates of hearing in future.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

NMS

Sri Nagaraja R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagaraja R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Philips Vs State by

Mr S P Jain Vs the State of Karnataka by

Manu G C Vs the State of Karnataka by

Chethan. S Vs State of Karnataka

Munnela Gopinath @ Arjun Vs State by Subramanyapura

Venkatesha Vs State of Karnataka