IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1714 OF 2018
S/O. M.N. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE TAXI DRIVER,
RESIDING AT NO.34/2,
RAJEEV GANDHI ROAD,
J.P. NAGARA 6TH PHASE,
(BY SRI K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
PUTTENASHALLI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.300 OF 2017 (S.C.NO.247 OF 2018) OF PUTTENAHALLI
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.
498A 304B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF I.P.C. AND SECTION 4
AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Earlier petition filed in Criminal Petition No.9616
of 2017 was dismissed on merits, by order dated
8-1-2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that since then, charge-sheet has been laid against the
petitioner which amounts to a changed circumstance.
The petitioner is in custody since 16-8-2017 and accused
No.2 is already enlarged on bail. The post-mortem report
does not reveal any external injury. Therefore, he seeks
for grant of bail.
3. Looking to the previous order passed by this
Court in Criminal Petition 9616 of 2017, it is seen that all
the contentions urged by the petitioner on fact as well on
law have been considered and answered. Therefore, I do
not find any good reason to re-consider the said order.
However, having regard to the nature of the allegations
made against the petitioner and the petitioner being in
judicial custody for nearly a year, it would be appropriate
to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial as
expeditiously as possible.
4. Hence, the trial Court is directed to conclude the
trial expeditiously within an outer limit of six months from
the communication of this order. If the trial is not
completed within six months, the petitioner is at liberty to
move the trial Court for grant of bail.
With the above observations, the petition is