DAWOOD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the matter for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay in commencement of evidence and in light of the observations made earlier that the petitioner was reserved liberty to move after the completion of evidence of CW.2 and CW.3, the delay has prejudiced his rights.

(2.) Learned HCGP would point out that efforts have been made by the prosecution to split up the case as regards those who are absconding so that the trial would continue insofar as the petitioner herein and other accused. The trial Court to expedite the process of splitting up of the case vis -vis those who are absconding and to go on with the commencement of trial of other accused who are before this Court.

(3.) Memo for withdrawal is taken note of. As pointed out earlier insofar as the aspect of delay is concerned, in light of the submission made by the learned HCGP and the direction that is passed, the said aspect is taken note of and mere delay at the present juncture would not be sufficient to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Insofar as the other grounds made out regarding health issues, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to raise the same before the trial Court as per law.