IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.602 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Shekar @ Chandrashekar @ Shekri Aged about 38 years S/o Ankegowda R/at No.499, Basavanagudi Street Belavadi, Mysuru City – 570 018. ...Petitioner (By Sri G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka Represented by Vijayanagara Police Station Mysuru Through State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.54/2015 (S.C.No.284/2015) of Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru City for the offence punishable under Section 201, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B of IPC.
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 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in S.C.No.284/2015 (Crime No.54/2015) of Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru City for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of I.P.C.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court by its order dated 30.09.2015 in Criminal Petition No.5368/2015 granted the regular bail and accordingly, he appeared before the Court below and produced the sureties. Thereafter, he was not able to attend the Court due to his ill health. He filed an exemption application on 19.04.2018. The Court below observed that the accused was continuously absent by not appearing regularly before the Court and also no documents have been produced to support the said contentions. Hence, the application was rejected and non bailable warrant was issued.
4. He further submitted that in terms of non- bailable warrant, the petitioner-accused was taken into custody. Thereafter, the bail application was moved and the same was rejected. He further submitted that the petitioner-accused has remained absent as he was suffering from ill health but not deliberately or intentionally and even the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an exemption application, which was also rejected and NBW was issued. He also submitted that the petitioner-accused is ready to face the trial. Already 1 to 19 witnesses have been examined and only the remaining witnesses have to be examined. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release him on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that accused -petitioner has continuously remained absent and thereafter, the Court below has issued NBW and taken the petitioner-accused to custody so as to not to hamper the trial. The petitioner-accused was not attending the Court regularly and no valid reasons have been assigned for his absence. As such, the trial Court has rightly issued NBW and taken him to custody. Hence, he has violated the conditions of the bail order. There are no good grounds to grant bail. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the order sheet which is made available, on 19.04.2018, an exemption application was filed. On the said date, in respect of petitioner-accused No.1, the Court below, without considering the said application has rejected and issued NBW. Thereafter, the petitioner-accused has been taken to custody. As could be seen from the records, already P.W.1 to P.W.19 have been examined and the remaining witnesses have to be examined. What is to be seen from the records is that whether the accused has remained absent intentionally and is ready to face the trial. That could be seen from the order sheet of the trial Court, the accused has not deliberately remained absent and an exemption application was also filed. If at all the presences of the accused is required, then under such circumstances, the trial Court could have granted exemption and directed the accused to keep him present on the next date of hearing. Instead of doing so, the trial Court issued NBW and split up the case has been registered as against accused No.1 as he was absconding. He was later apprehended by the police and produced before the Court below. The trial Court has subsequently clubbed the split up case against the accused No.1 with the original case. These records clearly go to show that the trial Court without application of mind has passed the said order. Taking into consideration of the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner-accused is released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
8. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is allowed and petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail in S.C.No.284/2015 (Crime No.54/2015) of Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru City for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 143, 144, 147, 148, 302, 201 read with Section 149 of I.P.C subject to the following conditions:-
1. The petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner directly or indirectly.
3. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without prior permission.
4. Without filing exemption application, he shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing , till the trial is concluded.
NR/-
Sd/- JUDGE