IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7396 OF 2019 BETWEEN :
RAJENDRA KUMAR, S/O. KRISHNA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/AT MAHESHWARI BUILDING, 5TH CROSS, RAMAKRISHNA LAYOUT, MAHADEVPURA, BANGALORE CITY-560 037.
(BY SRI: MANU B.S., ADV.,) AND :
STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY H.A.L. POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.
(BY SRI: MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.54/2018 OF H.A.L. POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363 OF IPC AND SEC. 11 OF THE POCSO ACT 2012.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State. Perused the records.
2. It is a very peculiar case where the petitioner was released on bail by the Special Court in Spl. CC No.430/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Section 11 of POCSO Act, 2012, vide order dated 09.03.2018. The Court ordered for release of the accused on executing his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum along with cash security of Rs.5,000/-. On 12.03.2018, the accused had furnished surety of one Sri. H.S. Nataraju and deposited the cash security amount. Subsequently, the accused remained absent. The Court forfeited the bond executed by the accused and surety and issued NBW to the accused. Immediately, the accused appeared before the Court seeking recalling of the warrant issued against him. On that day, the surety Sri.
H.S. Nataraju also appeared before the Court in Crl.
Misc. No.10733/2018 and he submitted that he has not offered surety for the accused and in fact the accused offered a fake person as Sri. H.S. Nataraju for execution of the surety bond. Taking serious note of the same, the Court has taken the accused to the custody and he has been in judicial custody since 08.05.2019.
3. Looking to the above said circumstances, so far as the main offence is concerned, the court has already granted bail. Further added to that, a case has been registered for recovery of the bond amount as well as a criminal case was ordered to be registered against the petitioner for having given fake surety before the Court. Whether the surety was fake or not is not yet decided and the same has to be decided in Crl. Misc. No.10733/2018 whether the said surety himself has actually offered surety or the fake surety was offered by the petitioner. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has made attempts to dupe the court itself. However, considering his incarceration from 08.05.2019 and also he was released on bail in the main case itself, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail by imposing stringent conditions.
4. The learned counsel also submitted that evidence has already been commenced, six witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Taking into consideration the over all factual matrix of the case as quoted above, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail by imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following :
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Spl. CC No.430/2018 on the file of the LIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Section 11 of POCSO Act, 2012, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with 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 has to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- for his appearance before the trial court other than the amount of Rs.5,000/- already deposited. The Court has to pass appropriate order about this money after the termination of the proceedings in Spl. C.C. No.430/2018.
This bail order shall not come to the help of the accused if he remained absent for two consecutive occasions before the trial court without intimation to the court or without being exempted by the court for any genuine reason.
Sd/- JUDGE Snc