The delay in concluding the trial and the principle of granting bail when there is a delay in trial were the central legal points established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

B.A.Patil, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on regular bail in Crime No.132/2016 of Basavanahalli Police Station (S.C.No.34/2018 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru), for the offences punishable under Sections 364A, 395, 386, 324, 342, 506 and 120B r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.

2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Hashmath Pasha virtually for the petitioner-accused No.4 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.Mahesh Shetty for the respondent-State.

This case has been heard and reserved on 8.10.2020 for orders and today the order has been pronounced.

3. The gist of the complaint is that on 28.06.2016 at about 2.00 a.m., the complainant was about to open the gate of his house to park his vehicle. At that time, one Abhijith and six others came in a black Scorpio vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA-20/N-3659 and surrounded and thereafter kidnapped him in their car and he was also threatened not to shout and if he shouts, they will kill him. It is further alleged that the persons who were there in the car were holding deadly weapons and they also forcibly took his car key and out of them two persons took away the car and they also switched off his mobile and thereafter started proceeding to Bengaluru and thereafter took him to a go-down at Bengaluru and tied him and wrongfully confined. It is further alleged that subsequently, one Naveen Shetty assaulted on the head and face of the complainant and threatened him that he should pay Rs.25 lakhs to a person whom they are going to name and if he is not going to pay, they will take away his life. When the complainant questioned him as to why he should pay so much of money, then Naveen Shetty told that he has cheated Rs.20 laksh to Nataraj Kalmane Chit Fund in a cricket betting and as such he has to pay the said amount. It is further alleged that thereafter they shifted the complainant to another place, where accused No.4 petitioner along with Naveen Shetty came and they demanded Rs.10 lakhs. They also gave a mobile handset and he telephoned to one Shiva to arrange for Rs.10 lakhs. But the said Shiva told that he has got only Rs.2,00,000/- and the complainant told about his kidnap and requested him to arrange for money and the said Shiva agreed to arrange Rs.10 lakhs with his friends and thereafter he telephoned to Shiva and told him to pay the same to one Pavan. He further told that the said Naveen Shetty has to be paid the said amount. He also gave a mobile number 9480805120, but the said mobile number belongs to Dy.S.P. and he told to bring the said amount near the Police Quarters where he handed over Rs.10 lakhs at about 10.15 p.m. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered.

4. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that, the petitioner-accused approached this Court for grant of bail in Criminal Petition No.6790/2018 on 22.10.2018, but the same came to be dismissed and subsequently he has also filed a Criminal Petition No.9456/2018. This Court by order dated 11.2.2019 rejected the bail application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-accused No.4 approached the Hon ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal No.2688/2019) and the same came to be dismissed on 2.4.2019. Subsequently, another Criminal Petition No.1945/2020 was filed before this Court. This Court by order dated 26.5.2020 dismissed the petition, however liberty has been given to the petitioner-accused to move this Court for bail after examination of the complainant. Petitioner-accused No.4 being aggrieved by the said order, approached the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to appeal (Criminal No.3211/2020). The same came to be dismissed on 31.7.2020 by confirming the order of this Court. But however, the Hon ble Apex Court directed the trial Court to examine the complainant within two months from that date w