- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11006 CRL.P No. 4872 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4872 OF 2023 BETWEEN: K R APPA KUNHI @ CHERRIAPPA S/O RAMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A DODDADKA HOUSE SULYA TALUK SAMPAJE DAKSHINA KANNADA GOONADKA PIN-574234 …PETITIONER (BY SRI LETHIF B, ADV.) AND: 1. MANOJ P.A S/O ANANDA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/A PERALU HOUSE KALGUNDI, SAMPAJE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA SULLIA - 574 239. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA SULLIA P S DAKSHINA KANANDA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-2; SRI NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV., FOR R-1) Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11006 CRL.P No. 4872 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT ON 17.04.2023 IN S.C.NO.5015/2021, CR.NO.74/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341,448,324,109,302,120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SEC.3 ,25,27,30 OF THE ARMS ACT 1959 ON THE FILE OF SULLIA P.S., D.K., MANGALURU NOW PENDING BEFORE V ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K, MANGALURU SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. The defacto complainant is before this Court in this petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to respondent no.1 (accused no.3) in S.C.No.5015/2021 on 17.04.2023 by the Court of V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru, sitting at Puttur. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. FIR in Crime No.74/2020 was registered by Sullia Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District, initially for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 324, 302, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, against three to four unknown persons based on the first information dated 08.10.2020 received from the petitioner herein who is the father of deceased Sampath Kumar. During the course of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11006 CRL.P No. 4872 of 2023 investigation of the case, respondent no.1 herein was arrested on 11.10.2020 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed in the present case as against seven accused persons and petitioner is arrayed as accused no.3 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected, and therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.7379/2021 which was dismissed by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.10534/2022 before this Court and the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.02.2023. Subsequently, petitioner had filed bail application before the Trial Court in S.C.No.5015/2021 and the said petition was allowed vide the order impugned dated 07.04.2023. Assailing the said order passed by the Trial Court, the defacto complainant/petitioner herein is before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to respondent no.1 (accused no.3). 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the earlier two petitions filed before this Court by respondent no.1 was - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11006 CRL.P No. 4872 of 2023 rejected. The same was suppressed before the Trial in the subsequent bail application filed by respondent no.1. Within a period of one month from the disposal of his petition before this Court, petitioner has filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court which was allowed. The Trial Court was, therefore, not justified in granting bail to the petitioner ignoring dismissal of the bail petitions before this Court. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 has argued in support of the order impugned. He submits that filing of bail petitions before this Court and their rejection were brought to the notice of the Trial Court by the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant. The Trial Court has granted bail to the petitioner considering the delay in trial. Accused no.1 has been granted bail on the ground of delay in trial subsequent to the order impugned. Other accused were granted bail prior to the order impugned. There is absolutely no progress in the trial though charge has been framed in the present case in the month of December 2023. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Perusal of the material available on record would go to show that after the bail application filed by respondent no.1 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11006 CRL.P No. 4872 of 2023 was rejected before the jurisdictional Sessions Court, respondent no.1 had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.7379/2021 which was dismissed on merits by the coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 06.12.2021. Subsequently, he had approached this Court once again in Crl.P.No.10534/2022 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 09.02.2023. 7. FIR in the present case was registered against unknown persons. Petitioner herein was arrested on 11.10.2020. The allegation of assaulting deceased Sampath Kumar with deadly weapons and committing his murder is as against accused nos.1 to 4. It is alleged that accused nos.1 to 4 had chased the deceased who entered into the house of CW-2 & CW-3 and inside the house of CW-2 & CW-3, accused nos.1 to 4 allegedly had assaulted the deceased and committed his murder. 8. After Crl.P.No.10534/2022 was dismissed as withdrawn before this Court, petitioner had filed a fresh bail application before the Trial Court and in the said bail application, a specific ground has been raised regarding delay in trial. The said aspect of the matter was not considered by this Court either in Crl.P.No.7379/2021 or Crl.P.No.10534/2022. Respondent no.1 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11006 CRL.P No. 4872 of 2023 who was arrested in the case on 11.10.2020 was granted regular bail by the Trial Court vide the order impugned on 17.04.2023 considering his period of incarceration. Petitioner was in custody for a period of more than two years six months, and there was no progress before the Trial Court. Even charges were framed in the present case subsequently on 20.12.2023. It is brought to the notice of this Court that even after framing of charge, there is no progress in the case and till date not even a single charge sheet witness has been examined. The prosecution has, in all, cited 72 charge sheet witnesses in the present case. It is only after considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the Trial Court has granted regular bail to the petitioner. 9. It is brought to the notice of this Court that Special Public Prosecutor was appointed in the present case to conduct the trial. It appears that the advocate who was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor has also represented the defacto complainant and on this ground, appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor has been questioned before this Court by some of the accused in W.P.No.23224/2024 and in the said petition, appointment of Special Public Prosecutor has been - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11006 CRL.P No. 4872 of 2023 stayed. It appears that under these circumstances, there is no further progress in the case before the Trial Court. 10. Accused no.1 is now enlarged on bail by the Trial Court vide order dated 04.02.2025 passed in S.C.No.5015/2021 considering the period of his incarceration. In the said order, the Trial Court has taken notice of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23224/2024 and has observed that there is no chances of commencement of trial and keeping the accused in judicial custody for indefinite period will not serve any purpose. All the accused persons have been now granted bail in the present case. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he has violated any bail conditions till date, nor there is any allegation that he has involved himself in any other criminal case after he was enlarged on bail by the Trial Court in the present case. 11. It is trite that unless supervening circumstances are pointed out, in normal circumstances, bail granted to an accused should not be cancelled. In the case on hand, the Trial Court has granted regular bail to respondent no.1/accused no.3 on the ground of delay in trial. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11006 CRL.P No. 4872 of 2023 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER - 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 1693, at paragraph 19, has observed as under: "19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime". 13. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any good ground to cancel the bail granted to accused no.3 (respondent no.1). Accordingly, petition is dismissed. SD/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK