Mr. Shivu Alias Guddadaiah Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNNS) PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL CONDITIONALLY PENDING TRIAL IN SC NO.130/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU WHICH IS REGISTERED IN PURSUANCE OF CRIME NO.26/2023 OF BALUR P.S. BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on regular bail in S.C.No.130/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, which is registered in pursuance of Crime No.26/2023 by the respondent-Balur Police Station, Chikkamagaluru.

¶24

Sri.Renspre Prithesh D'souza, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the jurisdictional police have filed the charge sheet and the charge sheet material is contrary to the written complaint submitted by

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21183 CRL.P No.14910/2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CW1 as the complaint indicates that the accused has informed the complainant that he was intoxicated on the day of incident and there was a quarrel between him and his deceased wife and he hit her and slept, and in the morning when he saw, his wife was dead. It is submitted that the complaint averments would fall within the exception clause-1 under Section 300 of IPC, as the incident has taken place in the spur of a moment. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the incident and all witnesses cited by the prosecution are circumstantial witnesses. It is also submitted that the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.5606/2024 before this Court, which was withdrawn with a liberty to revive his prayer before the Trial Court after examination of the material witnesses. It is contended that the respondent police are causing delay in the trial, as only CWs1, 2, 4 and 5 have been examined and they given up CW3. It is further contended that the trial Court faced great difficulty in securing CW5 before the Court, and in the said process

¶28

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21183 CRL.P No.14910/2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

delay is being caused, which compelled the petitioner to file an application seeking for bail. However, the trial Court rejected the same. Hence, he has moved the present petition. In alternate, it is also contended that liberty may be granted to the petitioner to revive his prayer for regular bail after examination of the material witnesses by the prosecution or, in the alternative, a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to conclude the trial in a timebound manner. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by considering the petition on merits.

¶31

Per contra, Sri.Rahul K., learned HCGP

¶32

appearing for the respondent-State submits that on an earlier occasion after arguing the matter for sometime, the petitioner himself withdrew the petition with a liberty to revive his prayer for seeking regular bail after examination of the material witnesses. It is submitted that only four (04) witnesses have been examined till date and the prosecution is yet to examine other witnesses listed in the charge sheet and prosecution is making its best effort to

¶33

5 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:21183 CRL.P No.14910/2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

secure the witness before the Court, and due to change in the residence of some of the witnesses, delay is being caused in the trial.

¶37

I have heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.

¶38

It is to be noticed that after filing the charge

¶39

sheet in the aforesaid crime by the jurisdictional police, the petitioner has filed Crl.P.No.5606/2024, which came to

¶40

be withdrawn by the petitioner seeking liberty to file a fresh petition before the trial Court after examination of the material witnesses. It is to be noticed that in view of the aforesaid order, a fresh petition without examination of the material witnesses itself is not maintainable. Be that as it may, the alternate prayer of the petitioner seeking a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial at the earliest is required to be considered. Considering the charge sheet material and also taking note of the fact that the prosecution has already examined four (04) witnesses,

¶41

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21183 CRL.P No.14910/2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

the interest of justice would be met if the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously and without undue delay.

¶44

With the above observation, petition is disposed of . The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial without any unnecessary delay and the prosecution shall ensure the presence of the witnesses.

¶45

It is also necessary to observe that in the event the trial is delayed, the liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move a bail application before the sessions Court once the material witnesses are examined by the Trial Court.

¶46

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶47

BSR

¶48

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Mr. Shivu Alias Guddadaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Shivu Alias Guddadaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Siddamma Vs Maradashetty

Meenakethan @ G.H.Prasad Vs Smt. Sunitha

Sri. M. Nagaraju Vs Government of Karnataka

Upendra Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Salma Banu @ Salma Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Ayisha Vs Mr Vasanth Kumar K