IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.6305/2018 BETWEEN:
Ramesh @ Kulli @ Kullravi S/o Krishnamurthy Naidu Aged about 31 years R/o No.77, 1st Main Road 3rd Cross, M.G.Hats Basaveshwara Nagar Bengaluru-560 091.
(By Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha, Advocate) AND:
State by Mahalakshmi Layout Police Bengaluru Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt. B.G.Namitha Mahesh, 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.232/2011 registered by Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru and in S.C.No.1031/2013 pending on the file of LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
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.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in Crime No.232/2011 (S.C.No.1031/2013) of Mahalakshmi Layout police station for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that complainant was knowing the accused since last three years and when the complainant was returning from remand room, because of the earlier grudge against the complainant, the petitioner/accused in order to eliminate him on 26.7.2011 at about 7.00 a.m. when the complainant went to meet his friend at J.C.Nagar Pipelien, he along with his associates came and assaulted the complainant with long and wickets and caused bleeding injuries. On the basis of the complaint a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already charge sheet has been filed and many witnesses have been examined. Only because he was in custody in another case, he did not appear before the Court and as such the Court below has issued Non- Bailable Warrant and proclamation and on 19.1.2017 under the body warrant he has been secured. He further submitted that some more witnesses are to be examined, since one year, even the Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued, even then the witnesses have not appeared and led any evidence. Other witnesses who have been examined before the Court have been already treated as hostile. He further submitted that in other criminal cases he has already been released on bail. He further submitted that, the wound certificate clearly goes to show that on the same day he has been discharged from the hospital and the said injury is not grievous in nature. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. 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 as many as 16 cases have been registered against the petitioner/accused and his antecedents are not good. She further submitted that the order sheet of the trial Court clearly indicates that several times the accused has absconded and he has not attended the Court regularly and as such on 19.1.2017 he has been taken to custody. She further submitted that the injuries suffered by the injured are grievous in nature and if again the petitioner/accused is released on bail, then it is likely to delay the proceedings and again the petitioner/accused may abscond and he may not be available for the trial. On these grounds she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. By going through the records it indicates that when the accused was released on bail, thereafter the accused has remained absent and several times Non- Bailable Warrants have been issued and thereafter issued the proclamation and the accused has been apprehended on 19.1.2017 and thereafter some of the witnesses have been examined. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that two more witnesses have to be examined and since one year the said witnesses have not appear in spite of issuance of warrant and as such he is entitled to be released on bail.
8. As could be seen from the records the petitioner/accused has absconded and has not co-operated with the Court for the purpose of trial and already many witnesses have been examined and the witnesses who have been examined have been treated as hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
9. Under the said facts and circumstances, I feel that at this juncture if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail, the further proceedings of the Court below are going to be hampered. Once the petitioner/accused violates the bail condition and jumps the bail, he is not entitled for bail. With that observation, this petition stands dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial by examining the remaining witnesses, not later than two months from the date of receipt of Certified Copy of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE *AP/-