- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:611 CRL.P No. 13472 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13472 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. DADA SAB @ DATU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS DONABAGATHATTA VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY AREHALLI POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.NAGESWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN S.C.NO.248/2021 (CR.NO.14/2021) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC BY THE AREHALLY P.S. HASSAN AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASASN IN S.C.NO.248/2021. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:611 CRL.P No. 13472 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. This is a successive bail petition and earlier this Court in Crl.P.No.4968/2022 rejected the bail petition on the ground that there is a specific overt act allegation against the petitioner that he inflicted injury with club and cause of death is also on account of head injury. This Court made an observation taking into note of statements of PW2 to PW10 corresponds with nature of injuries and when direct evidence is available before the Court, it is not fit case to exercise the power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C and rejected the same. Now, the counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner is in custody from 3½ years and some of the witnesses have been examined that is CW2 to CW10. The counsel also - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:611 CRL.P No. 13472 of 2024 submits that when the material eye witnesses have been examined before the Court, no chances of tampering the prosecution witness. 3. In support of his argument he relied upon the judgment reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 in case of Union of India V/s K.A.Najeeb and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.15 of the judgment with regard to keeping the accused in custody for a longer period wherein the Court has observed that the accused is in custody from more than 4 ½ years. 4. The counsel also relied upon the order passed by this Court in Crl.A.No.1741/2022 dated 19.01.2023 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.6 wherein an observation is also made with regard to relying upon the judgment in case of Union of India V/s K.A.Najeeb. 5. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the judgment reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1268 in case of Praveen Rathore V/s State of Rajasthan and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:611 CRL.P No. 13472 of 2024 another and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.5 to 7 wherein also an observation is made that out of 76 witnesses, 53 witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the order passed by this Court Crl.P.No.5896/2020 dated 09.04.2021 wherein also an observation is made that more than 4 years, he has been in custody and he may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per Contra, the counsel appearing for respondent would submits that witnesses who have been examined before the Trial Court have supported the case of the prosecution and remaining witnesses going to be examined before the Trial Court in a time bound period if any direction is given. The Trial Court has to appreciate the evidence available on record. 7. Having heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondent and taking into note of reason given by this Court while rejecting the bail petition in paragraph No.6 wherein specific overt act - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:611 CRL.P No. 13472 of 2024 allegation is made against this petitioner that he inflicted injury with the club on his head. The cause of death is also on account of head injury and also taken note of statement of CW2 to CW10 who are the eye witnesses in considering the direct evidence against the petitioner, rejected the same. Now, it is not in dispute that CW2 to CW10 who are the eye witnesses have been examined before the Court and remaining other witnesses have to be examined. The judgments which have been referred before the Court almost 4½ years in all the judgments and in the case already trial has been commenced and major witnesses have been examined and taking into note of the said fact into consideration and also the principles laid down in the judgment referred supra, it is appropriate to direct the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within 6 months from today recording the evidence of remaining witnesses. 8. Both the prosecution and defense are directed to assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case within a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:611 CRL.P No. 13472 of 2024 time bound period of 6 months. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78