IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5225 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
The State of Karnataka by Puttur Town P.S Puttur D.K., Represented by S.P.P., High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.M.Diwakar Maddur, Advocate) AND:
Majeed S/o Ibrahim Aged about 50 years, Near Bhajanamandir, Krishna Nagara, Bondel, Mangaluru, D.K-575 001.
...Petitioner ... Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to cancel the order of bail order dated 12.04.2018 passed in Crl.Misc.No.5060/2018 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., sitting at Puttur.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the State under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to cancel the bail granted by V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., siting at Puttur, dated 12.04.2018 in Cr.Misc.No.5060/2018.
2. I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner. The respondent-accused though notice is served, he has remained absent.
3. It is the submission of learned High Court Government Pleader that the accused-petitioner has remained absent for nine years and he was absconding. Without considering the said aspect, the trial Court has granted the anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that accused has misused the liberty granted earlier and he is absconding. When the accused is absconding, then under such facts and circumstances, the Court below ought not to have entertained the application and released the accused-petitioner on anticipatory bail. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to cancel the bail.
4. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the order of the trial Court and submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader.
5. On close reading of the order passed by the trial Court it has been observed that when the case was pending, the Presiding Officer of the Court was on training and as such the accused could not appear before the Court as he was under the impression that the case has been closed and only when accused came to know about issuance of the NBW, he applied for bail. It is further observed that in the said case a separate case has been registered against the accused No.1 and accused No.1 has been acquitted for the charges leveled against him. It is also observed that there are no allegations made against the accused-petitioner that again he has involved in similar type of offences and accused-petitioner is not a proclaimed offender.
6. Taking into consideration the said aspects the Court below has granted the anticipatory bail. The trial Court has not erred in passing such order. There are no good grounds to interfere with the order. Hence, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ag