Suresha vs State

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused 8 under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered by the respondent-Police Station in Crime No. 136 of 2013. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused 8 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the earlier bail application is rejected, but as the trial in the case is not commenced and the case is at the stage of framing charge, it may take longtime to conclude the trial. Hence, he made the submission that even in the F.I.R., complaint, the name of the present petitioner not figured and even looking to the statement of another injured witness, which was recorded subsequently, it is alleged the present petitioner caught hold C.W. 2. Hence, there is no allegation of overt act against the present petitioner or any recovery of weapons from his possession. Hence, learned Counsel submitted by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Babu Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P., ; Sunil K. Sinha Vs. State of Bihar through S.P. CBI, and State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, and also the order passed by this Court dated 14-6-2013 in Criminal Petition No. 5491 of 2012 connected with Criminal Petition No. 6118 of 2012.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the injured - eye-witness himself has stated the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, there is prima facie material placed by the prosecution and the offence alleged under Section 302 of IPC also. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, F.I.R., complaint and other materials placed on record.

It is no doubt true as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein that in the complaint and F.I.R., his name not figured at the first instance. But, in this case C.W. 2 is the eye-witness and it is also the case of the prosecution that accused persons made an attempt to commit murder which attracts the offences under Section 307 of IPC along with offence under Section 302 of IPC. The said eye-witness stated in his statement about the presence of the petitioner and also the participation in the commission of the alleged offence. The present petitioner approached this Court earlier and this Court by order dated 27-8-2013 passed in Criminal Petition No. 4737 of 2013 rejected the bail petition holding that there is prima facie case against the petitioners and hence, petitioners cannot be released on bail. Observing like this, the said petition was rejected. Now, the ground as per the learned Counsel for the petitioner that trial may take place longtime and hence, on that ground seeking the release of the petitioner on bail. I have perused the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused 8. As observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court itself delay in conclusion of the trial may not be the sole ground to release the accused on bail, but it is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration. Therefore, when there is prima facie material placed by the prosecution about the involvement of the petitioner and it is already held by this Court in earlier bail petition that he is not entitled to be released on bail, the petition is not deserved to be allowed and the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. But as submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused 8 that since from the date of his arrest and there is no much progress in the case and in view of his submission as the case is still at hearing before the charge, direction can be issued to conclude the trial.

The learned Sessions Judge has to dispose of the case early taking the case on priority basis but not later than six months. The Registry of the High Court is hereby directed to send the copy of this order to the concerned Sessions Judge immediately. With these observations, the petition is rejected.