IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8770/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri.B.S.Sunil, S/o.B.V.Sridhar, Auto Driver, Aged about 28 years, 3rd Karnangeri Village, Makkandoor Post, Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District-582 090. ...Petitioner (By Sri.V.Srinivas & Associates, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Kushalnagar Police Station, Represented by it’s State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.119/2014 (C.C.No.233/2015) of Kushal Nagar Police Station, Kodagu District for the offence p/u/s 392 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.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.119/2014 (C.C.No.233/2015) of Kushalnagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the complaint is that a complaint was registered on 25.04.2015 at about 5.45 p.m., alleging that the complainant was walking on Basaveshwara Extension road in Kushalnagar Town. At that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 came there on a Bajaj Discover Motorcycle. Accused No.1, who was sitting on the back seat of the said Motorcycle, ridden by accused No.2, snatched the gold chain of the complainant and escaped from the said place. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, they have added as accused.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused petitioner is not at all involved in the said offence and he has been got duped in the said case. It is further submitted that he was not aware of the case registered against him and after coming to know through the police, he has filed the bail petition before the District Court. Further, it is submitted that in earlier petition, he has been released on bail and he is regularly attending the Court without there being any laps on his part and he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the accused petitioner is absconding since from the date of registration of the case and the proclamation and non-bailable warrant has also been issued against him & he has not co-operated with the investigation. It is further submitted that he is a habitual offender. 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 both the parties and perused the records.
7. On going through the order of the trial Court, it is seen that the trial Court after appreciating the facts and by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs.
PRADEEP SHARMA reported in 2014 (2) SCC 171, has come to the conclusion that already the proclamation has been issued against the petitioner and a non- bailable warrant is also pending. The accused is absconding and as such, he is not entitled to be exercised with jurisdiction of the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., and hence, dismissed the petition. I feel that the said observation appears to be just and proper in exercise of the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court has to be kept in view. In that light, the present petition is not maintainable and as such, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS