Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka & Anr.

Accused No.7, being aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.2025 passed in S.C. No.136/2019 (Crime No.17/2019 of Belagavi Rural Police Station) by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Exclusive Special Court, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Sessions Court’), rejecting his application seeking regular bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’), has preferred this appeal before this Court.

Learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.1-State and resisted the appeal by filing a statement of objections. Though notice issued to respondent No.2 was duly served, he remained unrepresented.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.01.2019 at about 5:00 a.m., the complainant approached Belagavi Rural Police Station and lodged a complaint alleging that the deceased Vishwanath was his nephew, who had completed his SSLC and was undergoing training in car driving. It is alleged that, on the intervening night of 27.01.2019 and 28.01.2019, at about 1:00 a.m., the deceased had gone to attend a party along with accused Nos.1 to 7 near the house of accused No.1.

It is further alleged that the accused persons picked up a quarrel with the deceased and assaulted him with a machete and a sickle, thereby causing his death. Upon coming to know about the death of Vishwanath, the complainant and the mother of the deceased rushed to the spot and found his dead body with the head severed. On enquiry, they came to know that, while they were attending the party, accused No.3-Baburao Bagewadi and accused No.4-Ravi Jiddimani arrived at the spot armed with a sickle and a machete, respectively, and assaulted the deceased. The other accused persons also allegedly assaulted the deceased with an iron rod and a wooden stick.

On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered against seven accused persons in Crime No.17/2019 on the file of Belagavi Rural Police Station. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against all the seven accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

The appellant/accused No.7 is stated to have filed as many as seven applications seeking his release on regular bail, all of which came to be rejected. His seventh application, filed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1369/2025 before the Sessions Court, was also rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking his release on bail.

Heard the arguments of Sri Kiran Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on behalf of Sri Sangamesh Ghulappanaver, and Sri Abhishek Malipatil, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-State.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has no connection with the alleged offences. According to the material on record, the appellant had invited the deceased to join the company of the other accused persons for the purpose of discussing the purchase of a car which the deceased intended to buy. The appellant was a good friend of the deceased and had genuinely invited him to participate in the discussion regarding the proposed purchase of the car. The appellant had absolutely no knowledge of the alleged intention of the other accused persons to take away the life of the deceased.

It was further contended that the only overt act attributed to the appellant is that he allegedly held one of the legs of the deceased while the other accused persons were assaulting him. The incident is stated to have occurred at midnight in a cashew plantation, in darkness, and therefore, it would have been difficult to clearly witness the individual acts attributed to the accused persons.

It was also contended that the appellant and the complainant's daughter were in love with each other and had married against the wishes of the complainant. Soon after their marriage, they were allegedly separated by the complainant, who is stated to be politically influential, and the complainant's daughter was subsequently given in marriage to another person at his insistence. On account of the said incident, the complainant was allegedly nursing a grudge against the appellant and had falsely implicated him in the present case.

Learned counsel further contended that the trial in S.C. No.136/2019 has been pending for nearly seven years and had reached the stage of final arguments. At that stage, it was brought to the notice of the Sessions Court that accused No.2 in the present case had lodged a complaint against Suresh Patil and Laxman, alleging that on 27.01.2019 at about 11:00 a.m., the said persons had assaulted him with an intention to cause his death and had caused grievous injuries to him. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.19/2019 on the file of Belagavi Rural Police Station. Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in the said case, which was subsequently registered as S.C. No.102/2020.

It was contended that, since the prosecution disclosed that Crime No.19/2019 was a counter-case to the present case arising out of Crime No.17/2019, the Sessions Court, at the stage of final arguments, deferred the disposal of S.C. No.136/2019 until the completion of the recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses in S.C. No.102/2020.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was arrested on 02.02.2019 and has been in judicial custody ever since. Having regard to the stage of the proceedings in the counter-case, there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded within a reasonable period. Therefore, he sought the release of the appellant on regular bail.

In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of this Court to the proceedings in S.C. No.136/2019, particularly the order sheet dated 07.05.2026, wherein it is recorded that the judgment in the present case shall be pronounced along with the judgment in S.C. No.102/2020, which is pending before the same Court.

Learned counsel further submitted that S.C. No.102/2020 involves examination of 16 witnesses and that the trial in the said case has not yet commenced. It is therefore contended that, only after recording the evidence of all the 16 witnesses and hearing the arguments in the said case, judgments in both cases would be pronounced simultaneously. Consequently, the appellant would be compelled to remain in judicial custody for an indefinite period, despite having been in custody since 02.02.2019, i.e., for nearly seven years. On these grounds, learned counsel sought to enlarge the appellant on regular bail.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon the following judgments:

Per contra, learned HCGP contended that the appellant, along with the other accused persons, had committed the murder of the deceased Vishwanath by using deadly weapons, namely, a machete and a sickle. It is alleged that they severed the head of the deceased from his body and thereby committed a brutal murder. Though it is true that the appellant has been in judicial custody for the last seven years, the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to enlarge him on bail, particularly when the offences alleged against him are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, learned HCGP contended that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Learned HCGP further contended that, in the counter-case registered as S.C. No.102/2020, charges have already been framed and only 16 witnesses are required to be examined. If the said case is taken up on a day-to-day basis, the evidence of all the witnesses could be completed within six months. On these grounds, learned HCGP sought dismissal of the appeal.

In reply to the submissions of learned HCGP, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, as per the case status report, charges have not yet been framed in S.C. No.102/2020. On the contrary, the State has filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking further investigation in the matter. The said application is still pending consideration and the matter is posted for clarification. Therefore, there is no possibility of the counter-case being disposed of within six months, as contended by the learned HCGP.

Learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment reported in AIR Online 2026 SC 436 in the case of Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu. Placing reliance upon the observations made therein, learned counsel contended that the liberty guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution of India encompasses within its protective ambit not only due process and fairness but also access to justice and the right to a speedy trial. An undertrial prisoner cannot be detained indefinitely pending trial. Once it becomes evident that the trial cannot be concluded within a reasonable period and the accused has undergone incarceration for a substantial period, the Court would ordinarily be justified in enlarging the accused on bail.

Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in the present case also, appellant/accused No.7 was arrested by the police on 02.02.2019 and has been in judicial custody ever since. With regard to the overt act attributed to the appellant, it is alleged that he held the legs of the deceased and thereby facilitated the other accused persons in committing the murder.

Learned counsel further submitted that, though the prosecution alleges that the appellant actively participated in the commission of the murder, he was not aware of the intention of the other accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased. In fact, the deceased was a good friend of the appellant, and he had invited the deceased to attend the party without any ulterior motive or knowledge that the other accused persons intended to commit his murder.

Therefore, learned counsel contended that, having regard to the specific role attributed to the appellant, the principles laid down in the judgment relied upon by him, the prolonged incarceration undergone by the appellant since 2019 and the fact that the trial in the counter-case has not yet commenced, there is no likelihood of the counter-case being concluded within a reasonable period. Accordingly, he sought to enlarge the appellant on regular bail.

Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP appearing for the State, this Court has perused the records placed before it.

The specific contention of the appellant is that the pendency of the counter-case in S.C. No.102/2020 was brought to the notice of the Sessions Court only after the completion of the evidence in the present case. Therefore, it is contended that, when there is no fault attributable to the appellant in the delay caused in the proceedings, he should not be made to suffer prolonged incarceration on account of the pendency of the counter-case.

However, on perusal of the order sheet maintained in S.C. No.136/2019, it is noticed that an order dated 21.04.2026 records as follows:

The aforesaid proceedings disclose that it was accused Nos.1 to 7 themselves who brought the pendency of the counter-case to the notice of the Sessions Court by filing an application under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. seeking postponement of the proceedings in the present case until the conclusion of the evidence in the counter-case. If the accused persons were aware of the pendency of the counter-case, they ought to have brought the same to the notice of the Court at the earliest point of time. However, they failed to do so and brought the said fact to the notice of the Court only when the present case had reached the stage of final arguments.

Thus, it can be inferred from the sequence of events that, despite being aware of the pendency of the counter-case, the accused persons did not bring the same to the notice of the Court at the appropriate stage and sought postponement of the proceedings only after the evidence in the present case had been completed.

No doubt, the right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial prisoner, particularly when there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded within a reasonable period, is certainly a relevant consideration while deciding an application seeking regular bail. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are also required to be borne in mind.

However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that the accused persons, despite having knowledge of the pendency of the counter-case, did not bring the same to the notice of the Sessions Court at the earliest stage and sought postponement of the proceedings only after the present case had reached the stage of final arguments, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out sufficient grounds for grant of regular bail.

Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offences alleged, the circumstances in which the proceedings in the present case came to be deferred and the conduct of the accused persons in bringing the pendency of the counter-case to the notice of the Court only at the stage of final arguments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.