K. RAMACHANDRIAH, J.

( 1 ) (I) Whether pre-trial detention for years even in a murder case does not offend Art. 21 of the Constitution of India (COI)? (II) If so, can an under-trial prisoner in a murder case claim to be automatically released on bail in spite of the restrictions imposed on such prisoners u/s. 437, Cr. P. C. if there is no reasonable chance of the commencement of his trial in the near future even after his incarceration in jail for more than one year and 3 months? (III) Under what circumstances can an under-trial prisoner urge for his release on bail even in cases where he is accused of having committed heinous offence like murder which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life u/s. 302, IPC? (IV) Whether under such circumstances, an under-trial prisoner can invoke to his aid the bail provision u/s. 437 or 439, Cr. P. C. or the inherent powers of the High Court u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. or the writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the COI in order to come out of the precincts of jail pending his trial? these are the four focal points that are seriously canvassed by the learned counsel for the 22 under-trial prisoners out of a total number of 29 accused indicted for offences punishable u/ss. 143, 144, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326 and 302 IPC read with S. 149 IPC by Hunsur Rural Police in SC 87/89 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore in these three criminal petitions filed u/s. 439, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) TWO brothers by name Kenge Gowda and Govinde Gowda who were working as Mandal Panchayat Pradhan and President, Ksheerasagara respectively were residents of a village called Karimuddanahalli in Hunsur taluk, Mysore District. It is alleged that they were fatally assaulted by a group of persons belonging to the opposite camp inside Karimuddanahalli village at two separate places sometime between 5-30 and 6 p. m. on 2-5-89 and both of them succumbed to the injuries within a couple of hours of assault when they were being shifted to K. R. Hospital for treatment of the injuries they had sustained. The said assault incidents were promptly reported at Hunsur Police Station (for short 'the police station' alleging that the petitioners had assaulted them out of political vendetta. Thereupon, Crime No. 93/89 was registered at the Police station against 29 persons including 22 petitioners in these three Criminal Petitions for offences u/ss. 143, 144,147,148,341,324,326 and 307 read with S. 149. IPC in the first instance. Later, S. 302 IPC was substituted in place of S. 307 IPC after the death reports of Kenge Gowda and Govinde Gowda were received. Some time after registration of Crime No. 93/89 these 22 petitioners and 7 others in all 29 persons were arrested on 2-5-89 itself and they were got remanded to judicial custody. Certain incriminating weapons which were said to have been used for assaulting the deceased were also said to have been recovered by the Police on the basis of voluntary statements said to have been made by some of the petitioners. All the 29 accused filed a joint petition u/s. 439, Cr. P. C. before the Sessions Judge, Mysore. It was contended before the learned Sessions Judge that a combined reading of 2 FIRs would go to show that the names of petitioners 23 to 29 were not at all mentioned and, therefore, they were entitled to be enlarged on bail at the outset. It was also alternatively argued that the statement of K. D. Nagaraju recorded at the time of inquest proceedings over the dead body of Kenge Gowda contains the names of petitioners 1 to 5,8,14 and 29 only as deceased Kenge Gowda appears to have mentioned their names only in the course of dying declaration said to have been made by him before K. D. Nagaraju and, therefore, the rest of the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail even if any reliance could be placed on the statement of K. D. Nagaraju. It was further contended that a reading of the statement of K. B. Nagaraju recorded at the time of inquest proceedings over the dead body of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document