IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.713/2019 BETWEEN:
Mary Whitus W/o. Whitus, Aged about 51 years, No.144, Church Street, 1st Cross, T.C.Palya, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru-560 036. ...Petitioner (By Sri.Dineshkumar.K.Rao, Adv., for Sri.R.B.Deshpande, Adv.,) AND:
The State of Karnataka by Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru City-560 043.
(Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560 001). ... Respondent (By Sri.M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., praying to extend the time to file the petition for bail before the jurisdictional Court as ordered in Crl.P.No.2134/2018 dated 10.05.2018 by relaxing/modifying the condition No.IV “Petitioner shall file the petition for bail before the jurisdictional Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order passed in Crl.P.No.2134/2018 by this Hon’ble Court on 10.05.2018.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to relax/modify the condition No.4 imposed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.2134/2018 dated 10.05.2018.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the order passed by this Court, the condition No.1 has been fulfilled and the petitioner/accused No.2 has appeared before the Investigating Officer. Because of her age and ill-health, the doctor advised to take rest for two months and she was not recovered and she has not approached the jurisdictional Court within 30 days so as to file the bail application as ordered by this Court and as such, he prays to relax the said condition.
3. The learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that though this Court has granted bail to the petitioner/accused No.2, the petitioner/accused No.2 has not complied the condition No.4. No just and reasonable cause have been shown to relax the said condition. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused No.2 approached this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in Criminal Petition No.2134/2018 and by order dated 10.05.2018, this Court allowed the petition and released the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail by imposing the condition No.4, which reads as under;
“Petitioner shall file the petition for bail before the jurisdictional Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”
6. By going through the condition No.4, which has been imposed by this Court directing the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order to file bail application and that direction itself is depreciable as per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. No such direction can be imposed while grating the anticipatory bail. This proposition of law has been laid down in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR (2011)1 SCC 694.
7. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petition is allowed and condition No.4 is relaxed.
SD/- JUDGE NBM