IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2395 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.
(By Sri.Akram Pasha K, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, By Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara.
Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...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 Police Station, Ramanagara for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 120B, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.
2. The present petitioner, who is accused No.4 in S.C.No.99/2017 before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C’) seeking his enlargement on bail. The offence alleged against the accused are for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 120B, 307, 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘IPC’).
It is not in dispute that the present petitioner, who is accused No.4 in the said case was earlier granted the relief of bail in Criminal Petition No.3432/2018 by this Court by its order dated 08.06.2018. One of the conditions imposed by this Court while enlarging the petitioner on bail was that he shall regularly appear before the Court during trial. It appears that since the petitioner did not comply the said condition and remained himself absent before the trial Court, non- bailable warrant was ordered by the trial Court and he was got produced before the Court under the non- bailable warrant on 11.02.2019. Thus, the petitioner has after his futile attempt before the trial Court has approached this Court through the present petition seeking his enlargement on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that as explained by the petitioner in the petition he was arrested by the Tavarekere Police in their station Crime No.324/2017 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 384 and 506 of IPC and was granted the relief of bail on 13.06.2018, he could not appear before the Sessions Court in this case. Learned counsel drew the attention to some of the documents, more particularly, towards the copy of the order sheet maintained by the Sessions Court pertaining to the alleged crime.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that even after taking that the present petitioner, who was arraigned as accused No.3 in Crime No.324/2017 of Tavarekere Police Station, was arrested by them, but admittedly, he was enlarged on bail on 13.06.2018. However, from July, 2018 till his arrest in February, 2019, he has remained absent. As such, it is proved that securing him for trial would be very difficult.
5. Even according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petitioner, who is accused No.4 in the present crime and was accused No.3 in Crime No.324/2017 of Tavarekere Police Station was granted the relief of bail by the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi on 13.06.2018. According to learned counsel, by virtue of the said order, present petitioner was enlarged on bail on 15.06.2018. If that were to be the case, from the said date onwards, the petitioner was free and could able to appear before the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.99/2017. In fact, the typed copy of the order sheet produced by none else than the petitioner himself would go to show that on 04.07.2018, the present petitioner as accused No.4 had appeared before the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.99/2017. It is thereafter, he has remained absent from appearing before the learned Sessions Judge. As such, on 30.07.2018, learned Sessions Judge proceeded to issue non-bailable warrant against accused No.4.
A perusal of the typed copy of the order sheet of the said proceedings of the Session Court would further go to show that on several subsequent dates of hearing, due to non-execution of non-bailable warrant for securing accused No.4, learned Sessions Judge repeatedly re-issued non-bailable warrant. Ultimately, it was on 11.02.2019, present petitioner (accused No.4) could able to be apprehended again by respondent Police by execution of non- bailable warrant and the petitioner was produced before the learned Sessions Judge. Thus, for more than seven to eight months, the present petitioner/accused even though was not in judicial custody and not having any incapacity to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, has remained absent and not appeared before the learned Sessions Judge.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while producing a certified copy of the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2251/2019 dated 26.04.2019, submitted that in the same crime, in a similar circumstance, accused No.6 was once again granted relief of bail. I am of the view that the reasons for the alleged absence of accused No.6 is totally different from what the present petitioner (accused No.4) is contending. In the said case, accused No.6 has shown and convinced the Court that he was suffering from ill health. As such, he could not appear before the learned Sessions Judge and considering the same, this Court granted him the relief of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Whereas, in the case on hand, as observed above, on and after 15.06.2018, present petitioner (accused No.4) was free and able to appear before the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.99/2017. The alleged excuse for his absence/non-appearance showing that he was apprehended in Crime No.324/2017 was ended on 13.06.2018 itself when he was granted the relief of bail by the learned Magistrate. As observed above, thereafter, the present petitioner/accused had appeared before the learned Sessions Judge also in the month on July, 2018.
7. Thus, having been in a position to appear before the Court, he remained absent and despite issuance and several re-issuance of warrant and passing of several dates of hearing before the Sessions Judge, the present petitioner for no convincing reason remained absent from appearing before the learned Sessions Judge. It clearly go to show that further proceedings has stalled for nearly seven to eight months for no valid reasons. The said facts clearly establishes that securing the accused for trial would be a difficult job for the Sessions Court.
Thus, it is a case where I do not find any reasons or ground for re-enlargement of the petitioner/accused on bail. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-