High Court rejected successive bail petition in a murder case. Despite three-year custody delay due to court vacancy, Court held serious nature of injury and assault on witnesses precludes bail. Trial court directed to fix trial post-officer appointment.
Petition rejected; Trial Court directed to dispose matter as soon as possible.
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 AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6895 OF 2024 (439)
BETWEEN:
SAROJA HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…PETITIONERS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE POLICE OF TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY-562130, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL SSP)
NC: 2024:KHC:36213 CRL.P No. 6895 of 2024
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.302/2021 OF TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, RAMANGARA DISTRICT NOW PENDING IN S.C.NO.11/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302,394 AND 324 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
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)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Additional SPP for the respondent.
the incident, they were also subjected for assault and recovery is also made at the instance of these petitioners, i.e. bloodstained cloth and knife and TI parade is also conducted and hence rejected the petition.
consideration and this Court earlier considered the matter
in detail and also even injured eyewitness CW.1 also sustained injuries and CW.2 to 6 were also were assaulted and when eyewitnesses were there with regard to the incident and when the victim has lost his life on account of the act of these petitioners, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion on the ground that the trial has not been commenced for from last three years. The offences alleged against the petitioners is under Sections 302, 394, 324 read with section 34 of IPC. When such being the material on record, this Court can only direct the Trial Court to fix the trial and dispose of the matter as soon as possible since earlier it was vacant and now the Officer is posted to particular a Court.
the following:
NC: 2024:KHC:36213 CRL.P No. 6895 of 2024
ORDER
The petition is rejected.
However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
matter as soon as possible.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
SH CT-MCK List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted in a successive bail petition when the earlier petition was rejected on merits and no changed circumstances are shown.
Whether the non-commencement of trial for three years due to court vacancy justifies bail in a case involving serious offences.
Whether the trial court should be directed to dispose of the case expeditiously after officer posting.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kiran S.
Kishor K. @ Laddu
Saroja Hangaraki
Ajith S.
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
