Subhash @ Ravi vs State of Karnataka

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable

under Section 395 and 411 of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No.210/2011 and now pending in S.C.No.167/2013 on the file

of the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge at Mandya.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that earlier also the petitioner had approached this Court seeking his release on bail

and this Court by its order dated 26.10.2016 passed in Crl.P.No.4872/2016 rejected the bail application. However, time bound was fixed to

dispose of the matter early, but, not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. He further submitted, inspite of such

direction by this Court, the concerned trial Court has not disposed of the Sessions case. He submitted that from the date of arrest he is in custody

and by imposing reasonable conditions he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned HCGP opposed the petition on the ground that this Court has rightly considered the merits of the case and rightly

rejected the bail petition. It is also his submission that petitioner is a native of Kerala State and trial is already going on, if released on bail again he

may abscond and put hurdles in the further progress of the case and he submitted to reject the petition.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced in the case, so also perused the earlier

bail order passed by this Court, which is referred above. Looking to the earlier order at para 7, this Court has discussed in detail about the prima-

facie case as against the present petitioner. Accordingly, the earlier bail petition came to be rejected. But now, the contention of the petitioner is

that the trial of the case is not concluded within the time fixed by this Court. It is submitted that trial has already commenced and some of the

witnesses have been examined in the said case. Therefore, so far as merits are concerned, the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

Accordingly, criminal petition is hereby rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the recording of the evidence in the said case

and to take up the matter on priority basis and to dispose of the case itself within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order

without seeking extension of time. Intimate the concerned Court accordingly.