IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3664 OF 2019 (Through VC at Dharwad Bench) BETWEEN G. NAGARAJ GOWDA, ADVOCATE, R/AT NO.53, 1ST FLOOR, OPP, TO BADAVARA BALAGA SCHOOL, CUBBONPET, BENGALURU-560001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHANKUMARA D., ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ASHOKA NAGARA POLICE, BANGALORE, REP. BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER, HIGH COURT COMPLEX.
2. SMT. LATHA N., SHERISTEDAR, X ACMM, BENGALURU. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-2 FOR R1) (R2 DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 04.07.2019) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.54021/2018 (C.C.NO.34347/2018) PENDING BEFORE THE V A.C.M.M. COURT, FOR THE ALEGE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 484 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, ALONG WITH I.A.NO.1/2019, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to release him on bail in connection with C.C. No.54021/2018 (C.C. No.34347/2018) pending before the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 484 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned SPP-2 appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the private complaint is that accused No.1 was in custody in C.C. No.52089/2016 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru and charge sheet has also been filed under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC. On 2.3.2018 petitioner/accused No.2 being an Advocate for accused No.1 in the said case advanced the case on behalf of accused No.1 and produced the bail order copy said to have been passed by the learned XXVIII City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru in Crl.Mis. No.25093/2018 and the said Court accepted the surety as per the terms and conditions of the orders of the Sessions Court and released the accused No.1 on bail.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that that petitioner/ accused No.2 has not committed any offence and already accused No.1 has been released on bail; since more than 1½ years, he is in custody; he is having wife and son who require some treatment and the presence of the petitioner/accused No.2 is very much necessary. It is his further submission that parole is granted only to a convicted accused and the petitioner/accused No.2 being an under-trial prisoner is not entitled for parole; the petitioner/accused No.2 is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he is also ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned SPP-2 vehemently argued and submitted that the accused fabricated the documents of the Court and if he is released on bail, he may abscond and he may not be available for the trial. It is his further submission that already the petitioner/accused No.2 had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.6143/2018 seeking bail, and this Court, by order dated 09.10.2018, rejected the said petition; the present petitioner is successively filing the bail petition to come out on one or the other pretext; there are no good grounds to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail. There are no changed circumstances to entertain the present petition. However, learned SPP-2 fairly submitted that as the petitioner/accused No.2 has produced some documents to show that his wife and son require some medical attendance and for getting them treated, the petitioner/accused No.2 may be released on bail for a period of one month by taking adequate security and surety. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On going through the records, it is seen that the petitioner/accused No.2 had approached this Court in Crl.P. No.6143/2018 and this Court, by order dated 09.10.2018, rejected the bail petition on merits. There are no good grounds to reconsider the case on merits. But, however, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.2 that his son is suffering from serious liver problem and his wife is also suffering from health ailments and for their treatment, the presence of the petitioner/accused No.2 is necessary. As already stated above, learned SPP-2 has submitted in order to get the wife and son of the petitioner treated, the petitioner/accused No.2 may be released on bail for a period of one month and he may be directed to surrender before the Court below after one month of his release. The documents produced support the case of the petitioner.
8. In the light of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 is dismissed. However, I.A. No.1/2019 is allowed and the petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail only for a period of one month from the date of release to attend to his son’s and wife’s treatment, subject to following conditions:
(a) the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(b) he shall give an undertaking to the effect that immediately after the period of one month, he will surrender before the jurisdictional Court/jail without fail;
(c) he shall mark his attendance once in a week i.e., on every Sunday at about 10.00 a.m. till he surrenders before the jurisdictional Court/jail; and (d) he shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE Kms