Read Time: 06 minutes
"It is observed by this court in various cases that learned counsels for the accused are approaching this court for the grant of bail on the ground that there is delay in conducting the trial by the Sessions Court. And it was observed by this court that most of the sessions judges are not conducting the trial with letter and spirit by following the mandate of the Supreme Court and as per Chapter XVIII of Cr.P.C. by conducting the trial on day-to-day basis by following Section 309 of Cr.P.C," single judge bench has said
The Karnataka High Court has directed the trial courts in the state to conduct the sessions trials on a day-to-today basis, in compliance with the Supreme Court's order and the procedure prescribed in Chapter XVIII of Criminal Procedure Code.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan passed this direction while dismissing the third bail petition filed by an accused in a triple murder case in Chamarajanagar district.
The bench also cited the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of State of UP vs. Shambunath Singh And Others (2001) which has clearly said that trial courts should not adjourn without assigning reason, merely acting upon requests from counsels for accused and the same would violate Section 309 of CrPC pertaining to expeditious trial of cases.
In his plea, Ansar Ali, a resident of Gundlupet town, contended that even after three years the trial had not yet commenced. This was his third bail petition. He was arrested on June 4, 2020, in connection with the murder of Zakaulla, Kaisar and Idris. The murders were committed allegedly due to disputes about rice and cow transportation business.
The police claimed as many as 19 persons were involved in the incident. One Muzibul Rehman, the complainant in the case, and others had sustained injuries during the attack.
High court had earlier rejected Ali’s first bail petition on March 22, 2022, while he had withdrawn his second bail petition. In the third bail petition, the petitioner stated that some of the co- accused persons have been granted bail by the coordinate benches of the high court and hence he is entitled for bail on parity.
He further claimed that his name was not mentioned in the FIR and in the statements recorded by the magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC, no specific overt act has been attributed to him. He also said that the trial court is simply adjourning the proceedings and the prosecution has not recorded the evidence of witnesses.
Going through the facts of the case, the bench noted that at many times adjournment was sought on behalf of the accused even though the charge sheet witnesses were present.
It also said that one of the charge sheet witnesses had categorically named the petitioner in the 164 CrPC statement and other witnesses also stated that Ansar had stabbed Zakaulla.
"The accused cannot blow hot and cold, that on one hand, taking adjournments in the trial court and on the other hand, seeking bail on the ground of delay in the trial and that, cannot be acceptable," the bench said.
Court further held a submission that due to delay in conducting the trial, the petitioner is entitled for bail, cannot be acceptable, since he is involved "in serious triple murder case and assaulted five persons in causing the grievous injuries, simple injuries and an attempt to commit murder".
Case Title: ANSU @ ANSAR ALI vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Please Login or Register
