An accused's right to a speedy trial enhances their entitlement to bail when trial proceedings are excessively delayed, irrespective of the gravity of the offences charged.

ORDER :

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.

Accused in S.C.No.10019/2022 pending before the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur Sitting at Tiptur, arising out of Crime No.102/2021 registered by Handanakere Police Station, Tumkur, for the offences punishable under Section 302 , 427 and 304-II of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short ' IPC ') is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ' Cr.P.C .), seeking regular bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.102/2021 was registered by Handanakere Police Station, Tumkur for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioner herein based on the first information dated 06.11.2021 received from Shantilal K.L., father of deceased Ashoka. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein was arrested on 06.11.2021 and subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the aforesaid offences. Bail application filed by petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected. Therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.3931/2022, which was dismissed on merits by the co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 30.06.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed Crl.P.No.11185/2022 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court afresh after examination of CWs.1 to 3, who are the alleged eye witnesses, is completed before the trial Court. Subsequently, petitioner has filed bail application before the trial Court in S.C. No.10019/2022, which was dismissed on 22.01.2025. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CWs.1 to 3 have been already examined before the trial Court as PWs.3 to 5. As on this date, 11 charge sheet witnesses have been examined out of the 44 charge sheet witnesses. The petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader who has opposed the petition and submits that the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and petitioner is charge sheeted for committing the heinous offence of murdering two persons. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

6. FIR in the present case was registered against the petitioner based on the first information submitted by the father of the deceased-Ashoka. During the course of investigation, petitioner was arrested on 06.11.2021. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against him for the aforesaid offences. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that on 05.11.2021 at about 9.45 p.m., the petitioner had a verbal altercation with Ashok, who is one of the deceased in the present case. Subsequently at about 10.30 p.m., when Ashoka was talking with his friend-Somashekaranaika, the petitioner who came in a Mahindra goods Vehicle, dashed the vehicle against Ashoka and his friend. In the alleged incident, Somashekaranaika had died at the spot and Ashoka had sustained grievous injuries and had died on the way to hospital.

7. CWs.1 to 3 are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident in question. They have been now examined before the trial Court as PWs.3 to 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that till date, 11 charge sheet witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to 11 out of the 44 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case. Petitioner, who has no other criminal antecedents, is in custody for the last three years eight months.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another - 2024 SC