1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7267/2021

BETWEEN

GIRISH R

S/O LATE REVANNA

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

R/AT 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN

KAMAKSHIPALYA

BANGALORE - 560 079.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VISHNUMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

K.R. PET P.S.

REP BY SPP

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE - 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO

ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.247/2016

(S.C.NO.5021/2017) REGISTERED BY K.R.PET TOWN POLICE

STATION, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER

SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 212, 114, 506, 120B, 109,

201 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1) OF

ARMS ACT.

2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.5 under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for granting regular bail in S.C.

No.5021/2017 (Crime No.247/2016 registered by the K.R.

Pet Town Police Station) pending on the file of III Addl.

District

and

Sessions

Judge,

Mandya

(sitting

at

Srirangapatna) for the offences punishable under Sections

143, 147, 148, 307, 302, 212, 114, 506, 120B, 109, 201

read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 25(1) of

Arms Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for respondent – State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint of one Manju B. alias Manjunatha, the police

registered a case on 19.08.2016. It is alleged in the

complaint that on the said date, accused No.1 along with

the

petitioner

and

other

accused

persons

hatched

3

conspiracy to do away with the life of the deceased –

Rajesh, who is no other than the brother of the

complainant. It is alleged that on 19.08.2016 at about

5.00 p.m., the complainant – B.Manju, his brother

Rajesha, and one Chethu and Venu were present and

talking to each other in the cycle. At that time, accused

Nos.1 to 10 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly

and entered the cycle show room and out of them accused

Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were holding longs (swords) in

their hands. Accused No.1 assaulted the said Rajesh on his

head and other parts of the body and accused Nos.2, 4, 6

and 7 and this petitioner have also assaulted him on

various parts of the body and committed the murder of

Rajesh. After registering the case, the police arrested this

petitioner on 23.08.2016 and remanded to judicial

custody. This Court by its order dated 30.03.2021

rejected the bail petition of the petitioner in Crl.P.

No.4566/2021.

4

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and perusal of the records, it reveals that the petitioner-

accused No.5 has approached this Court on the successive

bail petition mainly on the ground that co-accused Nos.1

and 2 have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court. Of course, the Co-ordinate Bench has granted

bail on the ground of delay of more than five years in

disposal of the sessions case. The Co-ordinate Bench has

also held that the delay is due to non co-operation of the

accused in conducting trial and granted bail to accused

Nos.1 and 2.

5. On perusal of the order of the Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court, it is clear that the accused who were already

granted bail on the ground that accused were non co-

operative for disposal of the matter during trial, which

reveals that the accused in collusion with the other

accused have intentionally delayed the disposal of the

matter, which made the petitioner-accused to come out on

bail. On that count, the Court cannot grant bail. The

5

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even if the accused is

in custody for more than three years, that cannot be a

ground for granting bail in the offence o