IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8845/2018 BETWEEN :
Smt. Latha W/o Vasanthkumar Aged about 36 years Residing at Chikkabidarakallu Nelamangala Taluk Bengaluru District-560 073 (By Sri Kumar M.N., Advocate) AND :
State of Karnataka by Belur Police Station Hassan District-573 115 Represented by HCGP High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri Nasrulla Khan, HCGP) … Petitioner … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.330/2014 registered by Belur Police Station, Hassan for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 21(3), 4(1A) of Mines and Minerals Regulation of Development Act and Section 192(A) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to release her on anticipatory bail in CC.No.1016/2016 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Belur arising out of Crime No.330/2014 of Belur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420 r/w. Section 34 of IPC; Sections 21(3) and 4(1A) of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act, 1957; Section 192A of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that name of the petitioner is not found in FIR and she was not aware of the registration of the case as she has already sold the said lorry before the commission of the offence. He further submitted that petitioner-accused No.5 is suffering with blood cancer and other health issues. Petitioner is the house maker and she is having permanent residential address. No summons or notice of proclamation has been served on her. Only after coming to know that a case has been registered, she approached the trial Court for bail. But the trial Court without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has rejected the bail. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further submitted that already charge sheet has been filed and petitioner-accused No.5 is ready to abide by any conditions and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that since from the registration of the case petitioner is absconding. Charge sheet has been filed and a split up case has been registered. Even in the split up case summons, NBW and proclamation have been issued.
In spite of the same, the petitioner has not appeared. He further submitted that when once the Court has issued proclamation as against the petitioner, then under such circumstances, she is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. In order to substantiate the said contention, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of MP Vs. Pradeep Sharma, reported in AIR 2014 SC 626. He further submitted that there is ample material to show that the petitioner is involved in the alleged crime. Under the said facts and circumstances, he prays to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. The records would indicate the fact that already summons, NBW and proclamation have been issued against the petitioner and in spite of the same, she has not appeared before the Court. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case State of MP Vs.
Pradeep Sharma (cited supra) when once the accused is absconding and proclamation has been issued against the petitioner she becomes a proclaimed offender and as such this Court cannot exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. In that light, petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
7. However it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering from blood cancer and she has to attend hospital and as she is residing in Bengaluru, she cannot travel to attend the Court. Under such circumstances, in the event the petitioner-accused No.5 surrenders herself before the Court below and files an application for regular bail, the Court below shall consider such application expeditiously by considering the aforesaid facts.
With such observations, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-