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.1455/2019 BETWEEN:
RAVI @ RAVI NAYAK, S/O LATE BHEEMA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT C.K. THANDYA, DODDERI NEAR HEJJALA, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 109.
NATIVE PLACE:
SOLLEPURA VILLAGE, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 114.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.HANUMANTHA GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BY THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 560 062. (BASED ON THE JURISDICTION THE CASE TRANSFERRED TO KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. …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.108/2012 OF THALAGHATTAPURA P.S., RAMANAGARA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120-B, 302 R/W 34 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. In fact the petitioner was granted bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.P.No.6938/2012 dated 19.11.2012 on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner shall appear before the trial Court on all the hearing dates. However, the order of the trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.1950/2018 discloses that since 2014 the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court but remained absent from 13.7.2016. Therefore, the case was split-up against this petitioner in S.C.No.224/2018, after taking necessary steps against the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.4 in the original case in S.C.No.156/2012. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appearing before the trial Court up to 2016, but, thereafter due to some ailment, he could not appear before the trial Court. Therefore, the case was split-up against him. The facts and circumstances of the case also discloses that on 10.12.2018, the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before the trial Court and he was taken to custody and since then he has been in judicial custody. The trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by him for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
3. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case as there is no allegation that the petitioner is an anti social element and many number of cases are pending against him, in my opinion, one more opportunity should be given to him to mend his conduct. The petitioner might have understood or learnt lesson as to what would be the consequences of remaining absent before the trial Court without assisting the Court in disposal of the case. Therefore, I feel it proper to extend one more opportunity to the petitioner by granting him bail with stringent conditions.
4. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.108/2012 of Talaghattapura Police Station (S.C.No.224/2018) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 302 read with Section 34 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 sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering with 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 in future on two consecutive occasions without the leave of the Court, then the trial Court can take appropriate action for cancellation of the bail.
Sd/- JUDGE *alb/-.