IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7011 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI NIRANJAN H.K. S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.502, HESARAGHATTA BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 088 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI GANAPATHI S. SHASTRI, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 2. KAMALA SATHYA W/O LATE DR.H.C.SATHYA R/O 419, 9TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS BANASHAKARI, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 070 (IMPLEADED BY COURT ORDER DATED:4.1.2018) ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP; SMT.JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ROHAN KOTHARI, ADV. FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT/R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.49/2017 REGISTERED BY THE BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND IN S.C.NO.1068/2018 ON THE FILE OF LXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 397, 396 AND 302 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is facing trial in Crime No.49/2017 of Banashankari Police Station, which is now pending in S.C.No.1068/2018 on the file of LXVIII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-69) at Bengaluru.
2. The allegations against the petitioner are that, he was the tenant under deceased Dr.H.C.Sathya. On 9.2.2017 at 2.30 p.m. in the house of said Dr.Sathya, due to previous ill-will regarding rent, accused assaulted Dr.Sathya and caused him grievous injuries. Dr.Sathya died on 3.6.2017. Therefore, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 396 and 302 of IPC.
3. Initially the Sessions Court had granted bail to the petitioner on 22.3.2017. On 19.5.2017, the State filed application for cancellation of bail on the ground that the petitioner is trying to intimidate the witnesses and hampering the investigation. The learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail vide order dated 28.6.2017.
4. Challenging the cancellation order dated 28.6.2017, petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.724/2017 before this Court. In the said case, this Court had passed an interim order against the State not to precipitate the matter in arresting the petitioner. However, pending that revision petition and such order, though he was at large, petitioner again filed another bail petition before the Sessions Court.
5. Since the fact of cancellation of bail and pendency of the matter before this Court in Crl.R.P.No.724/2017 was suppressed, the bail was granted to him by the Sessions Court on 6.7.2018.
6. On 19.7.2018, this Court dismissed Crl.R.P.No.724/2017 and confirmed the order of cancellation of bail. By that time, the petitioner had the benefit of bail order dated 6.7.2018.
7. Again the State and complainant filed applications for cancellation of bail on 13.8.2018. The Sessions Court vide order dated 29.8.2018 for the third time cancelled the bail granted in favour of the accused holding that obtaining of the bail for the second time was the outcome of suppression of material facts.
8. While dismissing the Crl.R.P.No.724/2017, this Court observed that the said order does not come in the way of accused applying for bail under changed circumstances. The revision petition was disposed of on 19.7.2018. Soon thereafter on 30.8.2018, petitioner moved another bail application before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court appreciating all the facts dismissed the bail application on 11.9.2018. Therefore, again the petitioner is before this Court.
9. While granting bail, apart from the gravity of offence, nature of the allegations and the conduct of the applicant also play vital role. The case is based on evidence of the eyewitness/CW-1. On merits, the Sessions Judge has rejected the bail application.
10. Further, the facts narrated above clearly show that petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and abuse of process of the court.
11. Now the only changed circumstance petitioner is trying to urge is that CW-1 and heirs of Dr.Sathya have issued notice to the accused seeking possession of the premises of Dr.Sathya, which is in occupation of the accused as a tenant.
12. It is argued that, in the notice they have claimed that since 1.5.2017, they are demanding him to vacate the premises and hand-over the possession and under such circumstances, the statement of CW-1 that the accused was a stranger cannot be accepted. That is again on the merits of the case. There is nothing to show that CW-1 at any time prior to the date of incident i.e., 9.2.2017 had transacted with the petitioner. Apart from that, she says that only when her husband was telling her in the hospital that petitioner was his tenant, she came to know about that. Moreover the alleged demand is subsequent to filing of the instant case.
13. The material on record shows that the petitioner has abused the process of the court. Looked from any angle, there is no merit in the petition. Therefore, petition is dismissed with cost of `10,000/- payable to concerned District Legal Services Authority. If at all the petitioner moves any further petition, deposit of the cost is pre-condition to that.
KNM/-
Sd/- JUDGE