- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10743
CRL.P No. 101970 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
ST
DATED THIS THE 31 DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101970 OF 2024 (439-)
BETWEEN:
KOTEPPA S/O. MALLAPPA AMBIGAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HATTIMATTUR, SAVNUR TQ.,
HAVERI DIST-581118.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(THROUGH SAVANUR POLICE STATION),
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA)
Digitally signed
by SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
DHARWAD
BENCH
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE
Date: 2024.08.01
14:56:22 +0530
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ON BAIL IN SC NO.55/2018 IN
CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.150/2018 REGISTERED IN SAVANUR
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 450, 302, 506, 120B, R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE BEFORE THE PRL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HAVERI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10743
CRL.P No. 101970 of 2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
This petition is a successive bail petition and this Court
earlier considered the bail petition in Criminal Petition
No.100185/2019. This Court, while rejecting the Bail Petition in
paragraph No.8, has made an observation that when there are
ghastly murder of two persons have taken place and there are
eyewitnesses to the incident, recovery also made at the
instance of the petitioner and fingerprint also tallies with FSL
report, such being the case, this Court has rejected the bail
petition. The other grounds urged that the bail also granted in
favor of accused No.2 and also opined that granting of bail in
favor of the accused No.2 is not a ground to grant the bail in
favor of the petitioner, since specific overt act allegation is
made against the petitioner that he inflicted injuries with
dangerous weapon talvar and as a result, taken life of two
persons.
2. The petitioner counsel contends that major
witnesses have been examined and only official witnesses are
remaining for examination. The petitioner counsel reiterates
that accused No.2 has already been granted bail and also
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10743
CRL.P No. 101970 of 2024
submits that the petitioner is in custody for more than six years
and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State
submits that apart from 44 witnesses, 22 witnesses have been
examined and all the witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution, except nine witnesses have been turned hostile.
This Court cannot usurp reserve the jurisdiction of the Trial
Court in appreciating the evidence available on record. This
Court has already rejected the bail petition, the question of
granting bail on the ground that he is in custody for a period of
six years is not a ground, when a heinous offense of taking two
life is alleged against the petitioner.
4. Having heard the petitioner counsel and also the
counsel appearing for the State, having considered the material
available on record, more particularly this Court, while rejecting
the bail petition vide order dated 05.03.2019, taken note of
prima facie material collected against the petitioner and
detailed order has been passed in paragraph No.8.
5. Having taken note of specific overt act allegation
against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody from last
six years is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, when the
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10743
CRL.P No. 101970 of 2024
prosecution invoked major offence of Section 302 of IPC along
with other offences, particularly two murder was taken place
and hence, the same is not a ground to enlarge him on bail.
The granting of bail in favor of accused No.2, already this Court
comes to conclusion that the same cannot be a ground to grant
bail against the petitioner, since overt act allegations are made
against the petitioner.
6. Hence, I do not find any ground to enlarge the
petitioner on bail. On examining the some of the witnesses
also, not a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. This Court
cannot usurp the jurisdiction of appreciating the evidence
available on record in a petition under section 439 of Cr.P.C
and hence, no ground is made out to grant bail. Hence, the
petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
PMP
CT-MCK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15