IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8047 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
JOY MILTON, S/O MICHAL GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, WORKING AT LASSI PUB, R/O NO.8/1, 7TH CROSS ROAD, ANEPALYA, ANNIYAPPA GARDEN, BANGALORE - 47. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BY BASAVANAHALLI POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ROHITH B J, HCGP) **** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.132/2016 OF BASAVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, CHICKMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 364-A, 395, 386, 342, 324, 506, 120- B R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner was earlier granted with bail in Crime No.132/2016. Later registered as S.C. No.34/2018 for the offence under Section 364-A, 395, 386, 342, 324, 506, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC, which is pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru vide order dated 15.11.2016 by the Committal Court and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Before the Sessions Court the accused petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.7 appeared and enlarged on bail after furnishing the surety. Thereafter, the accused on various occasions appeared before the Court. On one or two occasions he remained absent and particularly the accused remained absent on 17.01.2018 and a petition was filed for exemption. That was allowed and thereafter he appeared on 11.02.2019. Again he remained absent on 25.02.2019, exemption petition was filed and allowed. On 11.03.2019 he again appeared. On 26.03.2019 he absented himself. Exemption petition was filed and it was allowed. Again on 9.4.2019 he was present. On 4.5.2019 he remained absent. Exemption petition was filed and it was allowed. On 30.05.2019 he was present. On 7.6.2019 also he remained absent. Exemption petition filed and it was allowed. On 26.6.2019 he was present before the Court. On 9.7.2019 he remained absent and exemption petition filed and the same was allowed. Again on 22.7.2019 he was present. On 5.8.2019 he remained absent. Exemption petition filed and the same was allowed. On 19.8.2019 he was present, but on 27.8.2019 he remained absent. Exemption petition was filed and the same was allowed. On 13.09.2019 he was present. On 27.09.2019 he remained absent. Exemption petition was filed and allowed and on that day a direction was issued to the accused to be present on the next date of hearing without bail. But on 10.10.2019 he remained absent. Therefore, the exemption application was rejected and NBW was issued against this petitioner. On 15.10.2019 an application was moved for recalling of the warrant by accused No.9 and considering the said application the same was allowed on cost of Rs.1,000/-. On 18.10.2019 in fact accused No.7 the petitioner also voluntarily surrendered, filed application for recalling and the same was rejected. Thereafter, he filed bail petition under Section 439 and the same also came to be rejected by the trial Court vide orders dated 28.10.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.
2. On careful perusal of the entire order sheet though accused absented himself on several occasions, but it shows that he also present on various occasions and exemption application was filed on the date on which he remained absent and the Court has allowed the said applications. That shows that considering the grounds urged before the Court satisfying itself the Court has exempted the presence on those occasions and the Court cannot find fault with that. The another important point is that accused No.9 who also absented on various occasions, has voluntarily surrendered and his application for recalling was allowed, but the similar application field by the petitioner was rejected, but no sufficient reasons have been assigned by the learned Sessions Judge.
3. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the bail petition filed by the petitioner explaining all the reasons as to why on the particular date he remained absent, but inspite of that the trial Court has rejected the said bail petition without considering that he was appeared before the Court on various occasions. Under the above said facts and circumstances, in my opinion, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on similar conditions as imposed upon accused No.9. Hence the following order.
4. The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with S.C. No.34/2018 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, (Crime No.132/2016 of Basavanahalli Police Staton) for the offence punishable under Sections 364-A, 395, 386, 342, 324, 506, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions. Hence the following ORDER (i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) before the trial Court towards the litigation expenses and the said amount has to be forfeited to the State after the termination of the proceedings against the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl