IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.32/2019 BETWEEN:
RAJU A.H., S/O HUCHEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.501, KUVEMPU ROAD, VASANTHAPUR, SUBRAMANYAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 065. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.JAGADEESHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SUBRAMANYAPURA STATION, BANGALORE.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE – 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.222/2015 (S.C.NO.776/2015) OF SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner was earlier released on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.1764/2016 vide order dated 22.06.2016 on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner shall appear before the Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted for valid reasons by the trial Court. But the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not appear before the trial Court on two or three occasions for the reason that he was suffering from stomach ailment. Though no material has been produced before the Court to show that the petitioner was suffering from ill health and jaundice due to food poisoning, the fact remains that the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court on some occasions. He was arrested by the police and produced before the Court and he has been in judicial custody since 17.3.2017. I think by this time, the petitioner might have understood or learnt a lesson as to what would be the consequences of remaining absent before the trial Court without assisting the Court in the disposal of the case. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he is an anti social element and many number of cases are pending against him. Therefore, I am of the opinion that one more opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to mend his conduct. Accordingly, imposing stringent conditions, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
3. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with S.C.No.776/2015 pending on the file of LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru arising out of Crime No.222/2015 of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC., subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties 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 future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) If the petitioner absents himself before the trial Court in future on two consecutive occasions, the trial Court can take appropriate action for cancellation of the bail.
(v) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.