The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and undue delays can justify granting bail even in serious cases.

ORAL ORDER

1. Accused No.2 in SC No.169/2021 pending before the Court of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hassan, arising out of Crime No.62/2021 registered by Holenarasipura Rural Police Station, Hassan, for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 147 , 148 , 447 , 504 , 324 , 307 , 302 and 149 of IPC , is before this Court in this successive bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C . seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.62/2021 was registered by Holenarasipura Rural Police Station, Hassan, for the aforesaid offences against Papani and others based on the first information dated 24.05.2021 received from Prakash (CW1) S/o late Mallegowda, who is one of the injured witness in the present case. During the course of investigation, petitioner herein, who was arraigned as accused No.2 in the FIR was arrested on 27.05.2021. After completing investigation, charge sheet has been filed against five persons and petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. As against accused No.1 abated charge sheet has been filed in the present case. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court was rejected. Therefore, he had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.10185/2023, which was rejected on merits by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 10.04.2024 directing the Trial Court to dispose of the case expeditiously. Since there is no progress in the trial, petitioner is before this Court in this successive bail application alleging that there is an inordinate delay in conducting the trial.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that allegation of assaulting the deceased with a knife is found in the charge sheet as against accused No.1, who has died. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, allegation against him is that he had assaulted the deceased with a spanner. The material charge sheet witness have been already examined before the Trial Court and there is no progress before the Trial Court thereafter. Accused No.4 has been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.4938/2025 disposed of on 29.04.2025. Petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP has seriously opposed the petition. She submits that there are eye witnesses to the incident in question and they have supported the case of the prosecution. Petitioner has played a prime role in committing the crime. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition.

6. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that there is a civil dispute between the two parties and the incident in question had taken place at 15.00 hours on 24.05.2021. In the background of the aforesaid civil dispute, the parties had fought against each other and the allegation of assaulting and stabbing Mallesha, Manjesha, Ravikumar, who are the three deceased persons in the present case is against accused No.1 Papani, who had allegedly used a knife to assault the deceased. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, the allegation is that he had assaulted the deceased with a spanner. Post Mortem Report of the deceased would go to show that two of them had died as a result of stab injuries and the other had died as a result of chop injuries suffered by them. Petitioner has not used any sharp weapon to assault the deceased and therefore, the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased could not have been caused by him.

7. The material on record would go to show that in the incident in question that had taken place on 24.05.2021 after accused No.1 Papani had stabbed the aforesaid three deceased persons. Bhanu Prakash, who is arraigned as sole accused in the counter case registered in Crime No.63/2021 had stabbed Papani