GYANU MADHU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.1976 passed by the Principal Munsiff and JMFC, Athani, and In-charge Additional Munsiff and JMFC.. Athani, in CC.No.650 of 1976 so far as it relates to rejection of the request of the petitioners, who were the accused in the said Criminal case, that they be enlarged on bail.

(2.) On 19.6.1976, one Balappa Madappa Chavan and Malkappa Rachappa Rotti, both of Telsang, were murdered and the murder was reported to Aigali Police Station. Crime No.42 of 1976 was registered in the said Police Station. Investigation commenced and on 22.6.1976 petitioners Nos. 1 2 4 5 7 10 13 and 14 were arrested. They were produced before the Magistrate on 23-6-1976. Petitioners Nos.9 and 12 'were arrested on 24-6-1976 and produced before the Magistrate on 25-6-1976. Petitioners Nos. 3, 6 and 11 were arrested on 4-7-1976 and produced before the Magistrate on 5-7-1976. Petitioners Nos.8 and 15 were arrested on 8-7-1976 and produced before the Magistrate on 9-7-1976. As and when the petitioners were produced before the Magistrate, the Magistrate passed orders of remand in exercise of his powers under S.167 of the CPC. The last such order is dated 3-9-1976. By that order, 'the Magistrate remanded all the petitioners to judicial custody till 10-9-1976. On 8-9-1976, an application requesting that the petitioners be enlarged on bail mainly on the basis of proviso (a) to S.167(2) of the Crl.PC was filed. The Magistrate posted that application to 10-9-1976 and passed a composite order rejecting the request of the petitioners that they be enlarged on bail and committing the case for trial to the Court of Session under S.209 of the CPC. In the course of the said order the Magistrate has slated that the charge-sheet in this case was filed by the Police on 6T9-1976 and he took cognizance of the offences on 6-9-1976 itself.

(3.) Shri B.G. Naik, the learned Advocate appearing en behalf of the petitioners, attempted to contend on the basis of the different orders parsed by the Magistrate in the order-sheet, that in fact the charge-sheet had not been presented on 6-9-1976. This contention has to fail because of what is narrated by the Magistrate in the course of the order in question. As already pointed out, he has narrated that the charge-sheet was presented before him on 6-9-1976, that he initiated on it and that he took cognizance of the offences in question on 6-9-1976, itself. There is no reason to disbelieve what the Magistrate has stated in this behalf.