1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.527/2021

BETWEEN:

Rajesh G.,

S/o. Gopal Krishna,

Aged about 42 years,

Occ: Gram Panchayath Member,

R/o Vadarahalli Village,

Kengeri Hobli,

Kanakapura Road,

Bengaluru - 560082

…Petitioner

(By Sri. Shankarappa S., Advocate)

AND:

State of Karnataka,

By Soladevanahalli P.S.,

Rep. by SPP C.H. Hanumantharaya,

Bengaluru - 560001

...Respondent

(By Sri. C.H. Hanumantharya, Spl.PP)

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in SC

No.147/2017 (Crime No.15/2017) of Soladevanahalli Police

Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w

34 of IPC and Section 30 of Indian Arms Act 1959, pending

on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge at

Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru.

2

This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day,

the Court made the following:

O R D E R

This is the third bail petition filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C.

2.

While dismissing the petition filed by the

petitioner in Crl.P.No.9861/2017 dated 07.06.2018, liberty

was reserved to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail

soon after the examination of CW2 before the trial Court.

On completion of examination of CW2, the petitioner again

moved an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which

has been rejected by the trial Court by order dated

28.12.2020.

3.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

Sri.S.Shankarappa submits that CW2 has turned hostile to

the case of the prosecution and the circumstances brought

out in the cross-examination of CW2, even if accepted

would at the most make out the ingredients of the offence

3

under Section 304 of IPC. Further, he submits that even

when the petitioner was admitted to interim bail for a period

of 1½ months, petitioner having not violated the terms of

the bail and having appeared before the trial court as and

when required, the petitioner be admitted to bail.

4.

Per contra, learned Spl.P.P. for respondent

would submit that even though CW2 failed to support the

prosecution case, yet, in the course of cross-examination,

prosecution has been able to substantiate its case and

considering the said aspect, trial Court has dismissed the

application. Under the said circumstance, this Court cannot

substitute its discretion in allowing the petition.

5.

I have considered the submissions.

6.

Insofar as the merits of the case is concerned,

the same has already been considered by this Court in the

earlier order dated 07.06.2018. Liberty was reserved to the

petitioner to renew his prayer for bail soon after the

examination of CW2 before the trial Court. The trial Court

4

having considered the said evidence of CW2 has exercised

its discretion and hence, in my view, it is not proper to

express any opinion on the merits of the case as it is likely

to prejudice the case of the prosecution.

In that view of the matter, I find that no relief could

be granted to the petitioner at this stage.

Hence, petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SV