IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8321/2017 BETWEEN:
Shivakumar S/o Late Marinayaka, Aged about 30 years, R/o,36, Ooty Road, Muneshwaranagara, Mysuru-570 004. .. Petitioner ( By Sri Rudrappa P., Advocate ) AND:
State of Karnataka By Nazarbad Police Station, Mysuru City-570 004, Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001. .. Respondent ( By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP ) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.36/2012 (C.C.No.708/2012) of Nazarbad Police Station, Mysore City for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 307 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 307 of IPC, registered in respondent police station in Crime No.36/2012, now pending in C.C.No.708/2012.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that regarding initiation of the criminal case and all other proceedings, petitioner was not at all aware, because he has not received any notice from the Hon’ble Court. It is also his submission that the prosecution by furnishing false address, shown that he has not at all appeared before the Court despite receiving summons and hence, warrant came to be issued. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the documents he has produced and made the submission that looking to these materials, it cannot be said that he avoided the process of the Court. He also draws the attention of the Court to the medical records produced regarding the treatment that is taken, so also the birth extract of his son and daughter. He submitted that now the investigation is completed, charge sheet is filed, warrant is issued against the petitioner and thereafter, he was taken to custody. Hence, the learned counsel submits that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition making the submission that for a period of five years, he remained absconding and ultimately split up charge sheet came to be filed as against the present petitioner. The learned HCGP also made the submission that he has involved in two other cases, one is for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and another one for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC. Hence, he submitted that he is a habitual offender and if released on bail, there is likelihood that he may involve in similar offences and even he may abscond also, which will put hurdle for the further progress of the case. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also other materials produced in the case.
6. Even if the contention of the petitioner herein are accepted that summons are not served on him, but looking to the materials, ultimately the proclamation was issued and order for attaching the property of the present petitioner was also issued. In spite of that, he has not appeared before the Court. Apart from that, the materials also goes to show that he had involved in two other cases of similar nature i.e., for the offences under Sections 394 and 392 of IPC. Therefore, the learned HCGP is justified in making the submission that the present petitioner is having a criminal antecedent and if released on bail, there is every likelihood that again he may abscond putting hurdle in the case and even he may involve in similar offences in future also. Therefore, this is not a fit case to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the Petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE bk/