IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 :BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6151 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. Mogannagowda, S/o.Channapagowda, Aged about 59 years, Agriculturist, Keethuru Village, Gendalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District – 573-201.
2. Leelavathi, W/o.N.K.Madhavan, Aged about 49 years, R/o.Kowdalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District-573-201.
(By Sri.Girish.B.Baladare, Advocate) …PETITIONERS AND:
State by: Sakleshpura Police, Hassan District, Represented by public prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore-560-001.
...RESPONDENT (By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (1) (b) CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ORDER FOR RELAXATION OF CONDITION NO.2 BY EXTENDING THE TIME FOR FURNISHING THE SURETY AND PERSONAL BOND BY MODIFYING ORDER PASSED BY THE V ADDITONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.MISC.NO.608/2015 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2015 AND SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CRL.P.NO.757/2017 BY THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN ORDER DATED 24.06.2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 4(1A) AND 21 OF M.M.R.D. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the Respondent.
2. The petitioners were arraigned as accused by the Respondent-Police in their Crime No.118/2015 which being registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC and Sections 4 (1A), 21 of MMDR Act (Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957).
3. During the crime stage, they were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court with a direction to appear before the concerned court within 30 days from the said order and move for bail. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and they were appearing before the court. They appeared before the court on 24.06.2017 and filed bail application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently got it dismissed and moved the Sessions Court for extension of time to comply the order dated 14.07.2017 passed in Crl.Misc. No.608/2015. The learned session judge rejected the application by observing that the petitioners have already appeared before the trail court and hence, the petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable and thus rejected the petition.
4. There is no gain say with the orders of the Sessions court in rejecting the petition filed by these petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking extension of time since they were already attending the court on the hearing dates before the trail court.
5. Sri. Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that due to wrong advice, petitioners were under the impression that since they did not appear before the Sessions Court within 30 days as ordered in their previous Crl.Misc. No.608/2015, they got their petition filed under section 437 of Cr.P.C dismissed and sought extension of time before the Sessions Court. If anticipatory bail is granted for a limited period, they have to appear before the concerned court and participate in the proceedings before the Sessions Court.
6. It is unfortunate that the petitioners who were granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions court, though were not procured under NBW, out of sheer miscalculation, got their bail petition dismissed and again for no reason, are under apprehension of arrest. They shall directly appear before concerned court and move for regular bail. On that the learned Sessions court shall consider the application in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.
7. If the petitioners serve advance a copy of the bail petition to the public prosecutor surrender and move for bail, same shall be considered by the concerned Court in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/- JUDGE RG/Bsv