IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
S.Vishwajith Shetty, J.
Pradani @ Pintu Shekar Waghmode, S/O. Shekhar Vaghamode @ Metri - Petitioner
Versus
The State, Represented By The Station House Officer, Kagwad Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 102636 of 2025
Decided On : 12-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application considerations (Para 1 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. importance of speedy trials and its constitutional implications (Para 5 , 6 , 11) |
| 3. decision based on trial progress and right to bail (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
ORDER :
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
1. Accused No.2 in S.C.No.5018/2022 pending before the Court of XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Athani, arising out of Crime No.170/2021 registered by Kagwad Police Station, Athani taluk, Belagavi district for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 ( BNSS 2023) seeking regular bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.170 of 2021 was registered by Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi district initially for offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 326 of IPC against Shekhar Mallappa Vaghamode and others based on the first information dated 13.10.2021 received from Sukhadev Shivaram Shingade, relative of deceased Eerappa Balu Shingade. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein who was arrayed accused No.2 in the FIR was arrested on 13.10.2021 and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against two persons. Father of the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 and the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. His bail application filed before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected and therefore he had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.101072/2022 which was dismissed on merits by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 24.05.2022. Subsequently, petitioner had filed Criminal Petition No.100282/2023, which was dismissed on merits by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 14.02.2023. Thereafter, petitioner had filed Criminal Petition No.103479/2024, which was dismissed on merits by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 17.01.2025. Petitioner had once again approached the trial Court in Criminal Misc.No.10088 of2025, which was dismissed on 06.06.2025. It is under these circumstances, he is before this Court in this successive bail application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner having no criminal antecedent, is in custody for the last 3 years 10 months. All the material charge sheet witnesses have been already examined. The petitioner was serving in Indian Army and his higher officers have issued a communication dated 15.04.2025 addressed to the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, with a request to enlarge the petitioner on bail since his services are required by the Army. He submits that there is no progress in the trial after dismissal of Criminal Petition No.103479 of 2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 17.01.2025. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She submits that earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner have been dismissed on merits and no change in circumstance has been pointed out and therefore this petition cannot be entertained. She further submits that trial Court may be directed to dispose of the main case within a time frame since only few more witnesses are required to be examined by the prosecution.Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.
6. First informant, who is the father of deceased Eerappa Balu Shingade, is the alleged eyewitness to the incident in question. Though FIR was initially registered against 5 persons, after completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed only against 2 persons. As per the charge sheet allegations, there was an enmity between the accused and the deceased, for the reason that deceased had made complaint to the police alleging that accused had committed theft of sheep. In the alleged incident that had taken place on 13.10.2021 at about 02.20
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 necessitates granting bail if prolonged detention occurs without substantive progress in proceedings.
The court granted bail due to lengthy custody, similarity of allegations with a co-accused who received bail, and lack of evidence suggesting witness tampering.
The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, stating that prolonged detention without trial can justify grant of bail even for serious offences.
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.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 necessitates granting bail when material witnesses have been examined, irrespective of the seriousness of the crime.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution necessitates granting bail when the prosecution's progress is insufficient, even for serious offenses.
The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, and inordinate delays can justify bail, irrespective of the seriousness of the charges.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and indefinite detention without trial violates constitutional guarantees, warranting bail.
Bail granted in murder case due to hostile key witness rendering prima facie accusation doubtful, prolonged incarceration over four years amid delayed trial, no antecedents, upholding Article 21 pers....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.