Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sadhik @ P S Sadhik vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|28 May, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3111/2019 BETWEEN:
Sadhik @ P.S. Sadhik S/o. Saiyad @ P.S. Saiyad, Aged about 23 years, Presently residing at Kadanga, Arapattu Village, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu – 571 201. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Mahadeva R.K., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka Rep. by the Station House Officer, Virajpet Rural Police Station, Virajpet Circle, Kodagu – 571 201 Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.73/2012 of Virajpet Rural Police Station, Kodagu for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 324, 307 and 427 read with Section 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has sought for anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in S.C.No.77/2016 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu- Madikeri relating to the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 324, 307, 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the complaint in Cr.No.73/2012 came to be registered against the petitioner and 22 others for the alleged offences.
3. It is stated that after investigation and filing of charge sheet, the trial has proceeded with in the absence of the petitioner as no notice was served on the petitioner. In so far as the trial against the other accused, the matter has ended in acquittal in S.C.No.57/2013. After the split-up of the proceedings the case as against the petitioner which has been renumbered as S.C.No.77/2016 and Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued against the petitioner.
4. It is the submission of the petitioner that S.C.No.57/2013 has ended in acquittal on the basis of the evidence and materials on record after full pledged by the trial.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the observations made in Paragraph 18 of the S.C.57 of 2013 and contends that even on the merits of the case, there is no evidence as such against the petitioner.
6. The petitioner further states that the only allegation in the charge sheet is that the petitioner along with the other accused have damaged the vehicle, as could be seen and on perusal of the charge sheet produced. The petitioner states that he is not proclaimed offender and relies on the Judgment passed in Crl.P.No.6651/2018 disposed off by this Court on 13.03.2019 wherein under similar set of facts relating to the acquittal in the main case and while considering the grant plaintiff the anticipatory bail in the split up case, this Court has observed that the petitioner would be entitled for anticipatory bail as long as the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender. Taking note of the fact that only Non-Bailable Warrant has been issued to the petitioner and keeping in mind that the Judgment passed in the Sessions Court concludes that the prime accused are not guilty of the offences on the basis of the substantive evidence. It would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court where the case in Crime No.73/2012 of Virajpet Rural Police Station is pending.
(ii) He shall surrender before the trial court within 15 days from today.
(iii) He shall attend the trial regularly till the trial is concluded.
(iv) If the petitioner violates any of the aforementioned conditions, the bail shall stand cancelled.
(v) The petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(vi) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
Sd/- JUDGE KA/KLV
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sadhik @ P S Sadhik vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
28 May, 2019
Judges
  • S Sunil Dutt Yadav