IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8992/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri. Mohammed Rafique, Aged about 39 years, S/o. Late K.S. Ummerabba, R/at Site No. 137, Door No.9-29, 9th Block, Katipalla, Mangaluru Taluk -575 004. ..Petitioner (By Sri. Vishwajit Shetty S., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, Surathkal Police, Mangalore. …Respondent (By Sri. Chetan Desai, 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.171/2015 of Surathkal Police Station Mangaluru city and in C.C. No.4016/2016 pending on the file of JMFC –II Court, Mangaluru, D.K., for the offence P/U/S 341, 504, 323, 354 and 506 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for order this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This is the petition filed by the accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent police to release him in the event of his arrest in respect of the alleged offences punishable under sections 341, 504, 323, 354 and 506 of IPC registered by the respondent Police Station in Crime No.171/2015 and now pending in C.C. No. 4016/2016 on the file of J.M.F.C. –II Court, Mangalore.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.
3. Learned counsel made a submission that a counter complaint is filed by the petitioner herein in Crime No. 172/2015. The matter is investigated and charge sheet is filed in the said case. Witnesses are also examined. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that, in Crime No. 171/2015 the matter was compromised and even in the other case, wherein the evidences were recorded and the witnesses supported him and are compromised. The court has also observed that the main accused persons were acquitted in another case. Learned counsel made a submission that the complainant of this case is staying abroad and he was under an impression that when the matter was compromised, he need not appear before the court, hence that was the reason for his non- appearance before the court. Since the dispute between the parties got settled, the petitioner did not attend the court and therefore, non bailable warrant was issued and he was brought to the court. learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he has no criminal antecedents of any type and petitioner also undertakes that he will not tamper with evidence or witnesses. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader submitted, that in spite of issuance of the process he has not appeared before the court, NBW has also been issued. In view of the conduct of being absent he is not entitled for bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials placed on record, so also considered the submission made by the learned counsel for both sides at the Bar.
6. The materials produced go to show that continuously the present petitioner remained absent and not appeared before the court. Even if the matter is compromised as is his contention, nothing prevented him to appear before the court and bring the same to the notice of the court because in the other connected matter, the evidence was recorded by the court and whether the witness supported does not matter as that is a matter which is the concern of the court. The conduct of the present petitioner being continuously remaining absent, against that, chargesheet has been considered. Hence, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK