IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1906 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Shyam Singh Aged about 45 years, S/o Sri. Mahaveer Singh, Residing at D-70, Amaanvihar, Kirari, Suleman Nagar, North west Delhi, Delhi, Pincode-110086. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Shankaregowda.H.N, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka Represented by Magadi Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru, Pincode – 560001. ... Respondent (By Sri. M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.223/2013 of Bangalore City Railway Police Station, Karnataka Railways and in C.C.No.55/2017 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Ramanagara for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 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 No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.223/2013 of Bangalore City Railway Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that earlier, accused No.2-petitioner was released on bail and subsequently, after committal of the said case, he was not aware of the pendency of the case. He further submitted that because of lack of knowledge, the petitioner-accused No.2 has not attended the Court and due to his absence, the Court below has issued NBW. He further submitted that accused No.2-petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that after committal of the case, the petitioner-accused No.2 did not appear before the Court and a split up case has been registered and even inspite of issuance of summons and warrants, he has not appeared before the Court and as such, the Court below has issued the proclamation on 23.02.2018 and even inspite of proclamation, accused No.2-petitioner has not appeared. He further submitted that he is a proclaimed offender and he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
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 records of the Court below, accused No.1 has remained absent along with other accused persons and he has been declared as a proclaimed offender. It is well settled proposition of law that if accused No.2-petitioner is declared as a proclaimed offender, under such circumstances, the Court cannot exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C and grant anticipatory bail. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Pradeep Sharma reported in AIR 2014 SC 626.
8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that accused No.2-petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender and there are no good grounds to release accused No.2-petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Hence, Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE RB