IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.551/2019 BETWEEN:
State by Bantwal Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 01.
…Petitioner (By Sri. Rohith B.J., HCGP.) AND:
Bhuvith Shetty, S/o late Sanjeeva Shetty, Aged 27 years, R/at Kallagudde House, Pallamajalu Modankau Post, B.Mooda Village, Bantwal Taluk, D.K. – 571 114.
... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to cancel the order of bail granted to the respondent on 28.08.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.859/2018 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru thereby allowing the application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and releasing the respondent/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in Crl.No.337/2018 of Bantwal Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 324, 307, 395, 427 and 506 read with 149 of IPC and direct that the respondent be taken to custody.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner – State. Perused the records.
2. Though notice has been ordered to the respondent, process has not been paid by the State. On careful perusal of the orders passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, in granting bail to the respondent under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., no notice is necessarily to be issued to the respondent as the petition is devoid of merits and this Court is dismissing the petition.
3. On careful perusal of the order passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru, though this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for bail, particularly under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., as the offences alleged are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 504, 324, 307, 395, 427 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and also under Section 2(a) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981, and as the above said offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life, and the petitioner was already arrested and he has been in judicial custody, and no further investigation is necessary.
4. The factual matrix of the case also discloses that on 10.06.2018, there was a galata in Sri. Durga Mens Parlour, Tumbya Junction, Bantwal. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 5 holding soda bottles and stones assaulted C.W.1 by abusing him in filthy language. He rescued himself from the said assault. However, he sustained some simple injuries.
5. Though the Court is of the opinion that granting of bail by the trial Court is proper, this Court is not satisfied with the manner in which the orders have been passed. Except stating, about the case of the prosecution and the objections filed and repeating the same in paragraph No.7 – reasons, opinion of the Judge is absolutely not expressed as to why Court is granting bail to the petitioner. It is incumbent upon the Courts that whenever any bail petition is filed, basing on the factual aspects of the case, the Court has to express its opinion as to why the Court is granting or refusing bail. Such observation is absolutely absent in the order passed by the trial Court, except narrating the facts and the objections filed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Therefore, it is just and necessary for the Registry to send a copy of this order to the concerned Judge for his future guidance.
With these observations, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mgn/-