IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7973/2018 BETWEEN:
BADRUDDIN S/O. P.H. MOHAINUDDIN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC: DRIVER R/O. BADRIYA MANZIL KANJARUKATE, SANTHOOR VILLAGE UDUPI – 576 101 … PETITIONER [BY SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE] AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PADUBIDRI POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT – 574 111 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT [BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP] * * * THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.PC., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR. NO.129/2011 [S.C. NO.36/2018] REGISTERED BY PADUBIDRI POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 143, 147, 148, 363, 323, 324, 326, 504 AND 506 R/W. 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Petitioner is Accused No.5 in Crime No.129/2011 of Padubidri Police Station, Udupi, which is now pending in S.C. No.36/2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Udupi District, Udupi.
2. Petitioner and others were charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 363, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 read with section 149 of IPC, alleging that the petitioner and other accused being members of unlawful assembly armed with clubs assaulted CW.1 and caused grievous injuries.
3. When the matter was pending before the learned Magistrate in CC No.939/2012, initially the petitioner was granted bail. The learned Magistrate on 19.2.2015 held that the case attributed to the accused attracts section 367 of IPC which is triable by the Sessions Court.
4. In CC No.939/2012, the petitioner last appeared on 23.04.2016 and thereafter absented himself. Since the petitioner could not be secured despite issuing non bailable warrants, the learned Magistrate split up the case on 22.07.2016 and registered the same in CC No.2376/2016.
5. Thereafter, on 10.8.2016, the learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court. The petitioner was arrested on 29.09.2018 and he is in judicial custody since then. After securing him, case against him is committed and now pending in S.C. No.36/2018.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before the court as he did not receive any notice after the committal. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the court.
7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail.
8. In considering the bail, gravity of the offence is not the sole consideration. The conduct of the petitioner and chances of securing him for trial also has to be considered.
Though the petitioner contends that he did not receive any notice from the court after committal, the records show that he did not appear before the Magistrate since 22.04.2016 itself, that was much before the committal to the Sessions Court.
9. When petitioner was an accused in the case, it was for him to find out what happened in the case. For two years he was elusive. Under these circumstances, his contention that he could not appear before the Court for want of service of notice etc., are not acceptable.
10. Having regard to the fact that the case against him was delayed for two years and he has jumped the bail conditions, it is not a fit case to grant bail. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-