IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3665 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Jagadeesh T @ Jaggi @ Jagga @ Complex Jaggi, S/o Tangavelu, Aged about 22 years, R/at No.18, 7th Cross, 3rd Main Road, Nagarabhavi 2nd Stage, Kottigepalya, BDA Complex, Bengaluru 560 072 … Petitioner (By Sri. Anantharama, C Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court building, Bengaluru 560 001 … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.256/2017 (S.C.No.99/2017) of Tavarekere P.S., Ramanagara for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 120B, 307, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara has rejected the bail petition on 02.03.2019.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his enlargement on bail in Cr.No.256/2017 of Tavarekere Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. This is a successive bail application of the petitioner. As such, summary of the case of the prosecution need not be revisited. Suffice it to say, this Court by its order dated 08-06-2018 passed in Crl.P.No.3432/2018 had earlier rejected the bail application, observing that petitioner had jumped conditions of the bail. As such, his presence before the court could be secured only through execution of the non-bailable warrant. It is, thereafter the petitioner/accused has filed the present similar petition.
3. Heard argument of learned counsel for petitioner.
Learned H.C.G.P. not present.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument submitted that the changed circumstance is, marriage of the sister of the accused and accused’s alleged suffering with frequent headache, for which he supported the petition with the marriage invitation card and medical records.
5. A perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner would go to show that the alleged marriage of the sister of the accused is a past event, since same has already been completed and concluded on 18.01.2019. Thus the reason for marriage would not stand as on the date.
The second reason alleged is medical ground, shown to be documented with C.T. Scan of Brain report and C.T. Scan Bill/receipt. The said C.T. Scan of Brain Report observes that, there is no evidence of SDH/EDH/SAH or intra cerebral hemorrhage seen. The impression of the radiologist is that, it was a normal C.T. Scan of brain and no focal intracranial of SOL / BLEED / INFARCT was noticed. Thus the medical record also does not support the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner today.
6. In the said circumstances, since the presence of the petitioner could only be able to secured from the Court below by execution of non-bailable warrant. Since he jumped the conditions of the bail earlier and since there is no change in the circumstances subsequent to the rejection of the previous similar petition, I do not consider the present application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Psg* Sd/- JUDGE