After 7 Years In Custody, Karnataka HC Denies Bail To Murder Accused Who Sought Trial Deferral Until Counter-Case Evidence Ended at Final Arguments

In brief

The question

Whether the appellant’s prolonged pre-trial custody and the anticipated delay in concluding the counter-case justified release on regular bail

The court held

The Court held that the appellant had not established sufficient grounds for regular bail, having regard to the gravity of the allegations and the accused’s role in seeking postponement of the principal trial at the final-arguments stage.

It also directed

The appeal was dismissed.

01Facts

The appellant, Accused No. 7, was charged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, in connection with the murder of Vishwanath.

pp. 3–5, 12

The prosecution alleged that the appellant held the deceased’s legs while other accused assaulted him

pp. 3–5, 12

The appellant had been in judicial custody since 2 February 2019, and his seven applications for regular bail had been rejected

p. 4

After the trial in S.C. No. 136/2019 reached final arguments, the accused sought postponement until evidence was completed in a counter-case, S.C. No. 102/2020; the Sessions Court deferred judgment pending that case

pp. 7–9, 14

The appellant appealed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act against the rejection of his seventh bail application

pp. 2, 4–5

02Issues

i.Whether the appellant’s prolonged pre-trial custody and the anticipated delay in concluding the counter-case justified release on regular bail

pp. 8–9, 11–13

ii.Whether the accused’s decision to seek postponement of the principal trial only after it reached final arguments weighed against granting bail

pp. 14–16

03Law Applied

Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act provides for an appeal against an order refusing bail under the Act.

p. 2

Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to a speedy trial; prolonged incarceration and the lack of a reasonable prospect of trial completion are relevant considerations in determining bail.

p. 15

The Court also considered the principles in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, and Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, cited by the appellant in support of release where trial delay results in substantial incarceration.

pp. 9–11, 15

The Court treated the accused’s application under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking postponement pending evidence in the counter-case, as relevant to the circumstances causing delay.

p. 14

Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Section 3

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 143 Section 147 Section 148 Section 341 Section 302 Section 149

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 173 Section 309

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the appellant had undergone prolonged custody and that speedy trial is protected by Article 21, but held that the circumstances of the delay weighed against bail.

pp. 14–16

The order sheet showed that the accused themselves sought postponement of the principal trial until completion of evidence in the counter-case, and did so only after the principal trial had reached final arguments. The Court considered that conduct, together with the gravity of the alleged offences, insufficient grounds for release, notwithstanding the appellant’s reliance on the counter-case’s expected delay.

pp. 14–16