IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1091/2019 Between:
Santhosha @ Saddavar, S/o.Murthy Naidu, Aged about 29 years, R/@ No.04, House of Deepa, Hemmigepura Main Road, H.Gollahalli, Bengaluru– 560060. ... Petitioner (By Sri.B.V.Pinto, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, By Amruthur Police, By State Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bengaluru – 560001. ... Respondent (By Smt.Namitha Mahesh.B.G, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.86/2012 (S.C.No.64/2016) of Amruthur Police Station, Tumakuru District for the offence p/u/s 397 r/w 34 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following;
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to release him on bail in Crime No.86/2012 (S.C.No.64/2016) of Amruthur Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner/accused is innocent and he has been released on bail and subsequently he was appearing before the Court regularly for trial. He further submitted that since he remained absent on 12/10/2017, NBW was issued against him. Subsequently, NBW was got executed on 15/11/2017 and since then he is in custody. There are no other circumstances to show that the petitioner/accused has remained absent regularly. Though such is the situation, the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously observed that the accused/petitioner was continuously absent since from 27/10/2016 and has rejected the bail application. He further submitted that the offence alleged against the petitioner/accused is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further submitted that petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court and he is ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
4. Learned HCGP has fairly conceded that the accused/petitioner was attending the Court regularly, but on 12/10/2017 he remained absent and as such, NBW was issued and thereby he has hampering trial. She further submitted that if the petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, he may not be available for trial and again he may abscond. Hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records along with charge sheet material.
6. As could be seen from the order sheet on 12/10/2017, petitioner/accused No.2 has remained absent and summons has been issued to C.W.8, C.W.15 to C.W.18 and No witnesses were present. Because of the absence of accused No.2/petitioner NBW came to be issued as against him. On 27/10/2017 NBW was not executed and as such, again NBW was issued to accused No.2 and on 15/11/2017, accused No.2 was produced before the Court and since then he is in custody.
7. On going through the order sheet, it clearly indicates that the petitioner/accused was regularly attending the trial and he was absent on 12/10/2017, the Court has issued NBW. The observation of the learned Trial Judge that on 12/10/2017 the petitioner/accused was absent and NBW has been issued and subsequently on 15/11/2017 he was apprehended, is not correct. The petitioner/accused has remained absent only one occasion i.e. on 12/10/2017 and he was regularly attending the trial. Under such facts and circumstances, by imposing some stringent conditions, if petitioner/accused is released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of the above observations, the petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in Cr.No.No.86/2012 (S.C.No.64/2016) of Amruthur Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 397 read with 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, subject to the following conditions;
1. He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e. on every 1st between 10 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. before the jurisdictional police till the trial is concluded.
3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
4. He shall regularly appear before the Court for trial.
5. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Msu Sd/- JUDGE