IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7466/2018 Between:
Sri. T.N.Ramesh, S/o Nijagunaiah, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.30/119, 5th Floor, Annapurneshwarinagar, Nagarabhavi, 2nd Stage, Bangalore – 560 079. ...Petitioner (By Sri.C.H.Jadhav, Sr. Counsel for Sri.R.V.Anand, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka, By Tavarakere Police, 571 511. Tavarakere, Ramanagara District.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 01. ...Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., 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 Cr.No.259/2018 of Tavarakere Police Station, Magadi for the offences P/U/S 468, 471, 420, 478 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in Crime No.259/2008 of Tavarekere Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 475 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent – State.
3. Gist of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased two sites. She had fenced the said properties with barbed wire. Subsequently, the fencing was removed by the accused by encroaching in the said properties. Again the barbed wire was put and the same has been removed. Hence, she tried to construct a compound wall on one side of the land. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.259/2008. The petitioner-accused No.2 was granted anticipatory bail and subsequently, he surrendered and obtained regular bail. He remained absent before the Court below and as such, the Court below issued NBW and apprended him. As such, he is before this Court.
4. It is the submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner – accused No.2 met with an accident on 29.08.2015 and as such, he remained absent before the Court below. He further submitted that no notices were issued to proclaim the properties of the accused under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that petitioner-accused No.2 is not a proclaimed offender, so as to reject the bail application. He further submits that the petitioner – accused No.2 is not charged with any serious offences. He further submitted that the petitioner will give an undertaking before this Court that he will be regular in attending the Court on all the dates of hearing. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by the Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner – accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP brought to the notice of this Court, the order sheet of the trial Court. She further submitted that the bail was granted and charge sheet came to be filed and thereafter, the accused persons remained absent. Even order sheet disclose the fact that the petitioner had filed exemption application many a times and thereafter, hampered the trial and as such the trial Court has issued notice to surety and NBW to the accused. She further submitted that accused was not appearing before the Court regularly and not complied the conditions of the bail order. Under such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. On these grounds, she prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner – accused No.2 met with an accident on 29.08.2015 and even it is not in dispute that earlier the petitioner – accused No.2 was granted anticipatory bail, thereafter he obtained regular bail and thereafter he used to attend the court regularly, except for sometime, wherein exemption application came to be filed. As could be seen from the order sheet it discloses the fact that after the accident, the petitioner remained absent and Court below has issued NBW against the petitioner – accused No.2 and the surety. It is stated in the order sheet that no order has been made under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. to decline him as a proclaimed offender. It is well settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PRADEEP SHARMA – (2014) 2 SCC 171, that if the accused is an absconder and proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of Cr.P.C., he is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The said preposition of law makes it clear that if the accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender, then the anticipatory bail cannot be granted. In the instant case on hand, there is no such situation exists and now on instruction from the instructing counsel, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner will regularly attend the Court without filing exemption application.
8. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner-accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In that light, petition is allowed and the petitioner-accused No.2 is enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.259/2008 (C.C.No.246/2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi) for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420, 475 of IPC , subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner – accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall surrender before the Court below within 15 days from today.
3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
4. He shall be regular in attending the Court in terms of his undertaking in this behalf.
5. In the event of his absence before the Court below, the Court below can proceed in accordance with law and cancel the bail.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB