IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-{ARWAD DATED THIS THE 8 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRiMINAL PETITON NoAOOSI BETWEEN: Irappa Tirakappa Desur, Aged about 45 years, 0cc: Agriculture, Rio. Nishirn Aladakatti, Tq. Hangal, Dist. Haven. .. . Petitioner (By Shri. Arvind D. Kulkarni, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka, Through Adur Police Station, Adur, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, High Court Building, Dharwad. .. . Respondent (By Shni. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Adur Police Station Crime No.1 3 0/2009 dated 10.11 .2009 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of the 2 Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Haven in S.C.No. 13/2010. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant one Hanmavva Desur, bad alleged that the petitioner herein, who is her brother-in-law and her husband were at loggerheads in a dispute over their properties. On 09.11.2009, as usual there was a quarrel between the petitioner and her husband who were abusing each other and the petitioner, thereafter, is said to have assaulted the complainant’s husband with a club. Though one Basappa and Ningappa bad sought to intervene and tried to paci& the petitioner, the petitioner by then bad caused serious injuries to the husband. As aresult of which, he was said to have died. It is on this basis, that a case was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed a bail application c$ before the Court below which had rejected the same on the ground that a prima facie case was made out and that the offence is punishable with capital punishment. Further having regard to the circumstance that the incident was witnessed by several witnesses including the complainant, there was no reasonable ground to accept on the face of it that the offence was not committed by the petitioner and therefore had rejected the bail application. The petitioner had thereafter approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.7469/20 10, this Court while finding that there were no circumstances made out, when it was plain, on the face of it, that the petitioner was possibly guilty of the offence did not interfere that the order passed by the court below but took note of the circumstances that the petitioner had been continuously in judicial custody and that there was no progress in the case. Hence, observed that if the trial did not commence within six months from the date of order, liberty was granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again and it is in that background, that the petitioner is before this Court. 4 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as on the date even the charge has not been framed against the accused, he has been continuously in judicial custody and there is no indication of the case making any further progress. Notwithstanding that the accusation is of a heinous crime against the petitioner. The fact that the deceased was his brother and that there was a background to their animosity the death caused was unintentional and cannot be squarely brought under an offence punishable with death or with capital punishment. Therefore, since the death caused was in the heat of the movement and was wholly unintentional, the petitioner may be considered for enlargement on bail while imposing stringent conditions and pleads for a sympathetic consideration of the petitioner’s plight. While the learned Government Pleader would strongly oppose the application and would submit that the fact, the trial has not commenced within six months from the date of the order passed by this Court earlier may not by itself be a ground for enlargement on bail of the petitioner. The alternative would be for this Court to issue an appropriate direction for expedition of the trial. It is for good reason that the bail application was rejected earlier, as there is admitted animosity between the members of the family. The enlargement of the petitioner on bail may lead to other acrimony and violence, which can be avoided. This is one other reason why the petitioner has not been enlarged on bail. There is substance in the contention of the learned Government Pleader. It is more appropriate that the trial Court be directed to expedite the progress of the case while it is true that this court had afforded liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court to seek enlargement on bail. 4. The further aspect that enlargement of petitioner on bail may lead to a fresh acrimony and violence was not contemplated. Therefore, it is appropriate that the trial Court be issued appropriate directions. Since it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge is not yet framed by the Court below, the Court is hereby directed to take all steps possible to expedite the proceedings and to complete 6 trial at the earliest, to avoid situations as the present and in the interest ofjustice. The petition however is rejected. Sd/ Rsh JUDGE