IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.4676 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
JAMEER KHAN @ JAMMU, S/O ATHAULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO. 27, 4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, GANGANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560032.
... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY R.T.NAGAR PS, BANGALORE CITY, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SHRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.) ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITONER, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO. 269/2015 OF R.T.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 393 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent – police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Section 393 of the IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.269/2015.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – accused, so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that looking to the date of the alleged offence, there is a delay of 2 months in recording the statement of the witnesses. He submitted that in respect of another connected crime, he has already been granted bail by an order of the court. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner – accused may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP made a submission looking to the prosecution material that the present petitioner was not available to the Investigation Agency and till filing of the charge-sheet he was absconding. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition and other documents produced like F.I.R., complaint, the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bangalore rejecting the bail application, so also the copy of the charge-sheet. Looking to the charge- sheet material, it is seen that the present petitioner is absconding. The order of the Trial Court also goes to show that he remained absconding. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, the present petitioner is also involved in another criminal case. Therefore, the interrogation of the present petitioner by the Investigating Agency is necessary. Looking to the conduct of the present petitioner to remain absconding till date, even if bail is granted, again he may abscond and put hurdles in the progress of the trial of the case and even he may involve in committing similar offences in future also. Therefore, on these grounds, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE KS