The High Court of Karnataka rejected a successive bail petition filed for offenders charged with murder. Considering the heinous nature of the offence, the presence of an eyewitness statement, and the absence of changed circumstances, the Court held the delay in trial was not grounds for bail.
Petition rejected; custody of petitioners not affected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201019 OF 2024 (439)
BETWEEN:
S/O. BHIMARAYAMAKASHI, AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, PET. NOS. 2 & 3 ARE R/O. VILLAGE: DARSHANAPUR, TQ: SHAHAPUR, DIST: YADGIRI-585223.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NANDKISHORE BOOB, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GOGI PS, YADGIRI, NOW REPRESENTING BY ADDL. SPP HCKB AT KALABURAGI.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONERS/ A.NOS.1 TO 3, ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.72/2021 OF GOGI POLICE STATION, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI, IN SC NO.63/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S. 302, 201, 120(B), AND 506 R/W 34 IPC, IN VIEW OF THE REASONS AS STATED ABOVE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.
aged about 17 years. This Court observed that the Court cannot expect resistance from the deceased when four persons indulged in such an act and held that the ground that there are no external injuries on the deceased cannot be a ground to allow the petition. However, liberty was given to the petitioners to approach the Court after the examination of CW.17-eyewitness.
submits that in spite of the direction was given to fix the date for trial, the same has not been fixed and hence on that ground also the petitioner is entitled for bail. He also vehemently contends that the petitioner is in custody from 2021 and already three years have been elapsed and it will take time to lead evidence and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail and the question of fleeing away from justice does not arise.
invoked and when there is an eyewitness to the incident and he narrated the same in his statement before the learned Magistrate, this Court cannot exercise the discretion.
that specific allegations are made against the petitioners and also heinous offence under Section 302 of IPC is alleged against them. When such being the case, the trial has not yet been commenced is not a ground to enlarge the petitioners on bail that too when the eyewitness CW.17 has made statement before the learned Magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C. Hence, I do not find any ground to enlarge the petitioners on bail when there are no changed circumstances.
the following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SH CT-MCK List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail despite the pending trial and the absence of changed circumstances.
Whether the uncommenced trial after a year of custody is a valid ground for bail in cases of heinous offences.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
RAMANNA S/O. HANMANTHARAYA
MALLIKARJUN @ MALLAPPAMAKASHI
RAYAPPA S/O. BHIMARAYAMAKASHI
SAROJA HANGARAKI
STATE
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
