THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.363/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU (CCH-22) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 302 OF IPC ON THE BASIS OF THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.309/2019 BY THE RESPONDENT D.J. HALLI POLICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner was arrested on 12.11.2019 in connection with a case registered in Crime No.309/2019 of Devarajeevanahalli Police Station. He is in judicial custody since then. He is before this Court in this petition preferred under Section 483 of BNSS 2023, praying to enlarge him on bail.

2. It is not in dispute that the prayer for bail was rejected by this Court earlier in Crl.P.No.3695/2021, dated 12.05.2021, Crl.P.No.4457/2022 dated 21.10.2022 and Crl.P.No.11330/2025 dated 19.09.2025. In earlier two petitions, the merits of the case was considered and it is noticed that there are three eye witnesses i.e., CW.10 to CW.13 to the incident.

3. While disposing of Crl.P.No.11330/2025, this Court took into consideration that the eye witnesses are not yet examined and prayer seeking bail was rejected by this court twice. However, it was observed that if the prosecution fails to examine the eye witnesses within 3 months, petitioner is at liberty to move the Sessions Court for bail.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, vide Order dated08.01.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.26063/2025 has dismissed the prayer for bail. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

5. While dismissing the petition, the learned Sessions Judge placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2011 (3) SCC (Crime) 765 in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and another, observed that the gravity and seriousness of the offences involved in the case has to be looked into, which cannot be neglected while passing the bail orders.

6. The case of prosecution is that on 06.11.2019 at about 11.30 a.m., at 9th Cross, Modi Masjid Road, in front of furniture shop belonging into one Saddam, the petitioner/accused demanded money from the deceased Syed Waseem, for procuring ganja and when the deceased refused to pay the money, he stabbed him with a knife and committed his murder.

7. Nodoubt, the offence committed by the petitioner is heinous in nature. However, the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody from 12.11.2019 i.e., for about 5 years 4 months. In the chargesheet, 24 witnesses are cited. As on today, it is submitted that, only 6 witnesses are examined, though the charges are said to have been framed on 22.06.2022. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharastra and Another reported in (2024) SCC 1693. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

"If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."

8. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb reported in 2021 SC 712. Paragraph No.16 of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“16. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be det