IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9617/2018 BETWEEN:
M.H.Venkatesh S/o late Hanumappa Aged about 24 years Residing at Missaganahalli Village Near Pattalamma Temple Karahalli, Devanahalli Taluk Bengaluru-562 110 Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri C.N.Raju, Advocate for Sri G.S.Sudhakara Reddy, Advocate) AND:
State by Kodigehalli Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri M.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 Crime No.169/2016 (S.C.No.1425/2016) of Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This case is taken out of turn on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that mother is suffering with severe ailments and he is the only son who has to take care of his mother.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.169/2016 of Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.2375/2017 by order dated 26.4.2017 and subsequently he was regularly attending before the Court, but the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused has given wrong dates on two occasions and in the meanwhile his mother was also suffering from severe ailments and he being the only son who has to take care of his mother, has not attended the Court and even the counsel who is appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused has not filed any exemption application and as such the petitioner/accused has been apprehended by issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant, without there being any fault on his behalf. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. He undertakes to regularly attend the trial. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused has jumped the bail and even in spite of issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant he was not secured and ultimately he has been secured by issuance of proclamation and now the petitioner/accused is in judicial custody. He further submitted that if the petitioner/accused is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for the trial. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused has been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.2375/2017 by order dated 26.4.2017 and subsequently only because the counsel who is appearing on behalf of the petitioner/accused has not given the correct dates and mother of the petitioner/accused was suffering with severe ailments, he has not attended the Court and as such Non- Bailable Warrant and proclamation has been issued in this behalf. No doubt once the proclamation has been issued he is not entitled to be released on bail. Under the facts and circumstances, I feel that one more opportunity is given to the petitioner/accused on the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he will be regularly attending the Court and if he jumps the bail, then the Court below can take him to custody till the trial is concluded. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that if by imposing some stringent conditions if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.169/2016 (S.C.No.1425/2016) of Kodigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iii) He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police on 1st of every month between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the trial is concluded.
iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
v) He shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
vi) He shall be regular in attending the Court.
vii) If he remains absent or jumps the bail for one occasion, the Court below is at liberty to cancel the bail and take him to judicial custody till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-