IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.318 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Thejaswi, S/o Vishakanta, Aged about 29 years, R/o No.4175/4, 9th Cross, 5th Main, Gandhinagar, Mysuru-570017.
(By Sri. Nagesh.M, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, by Station House Officer, Mysuru South Police Station, Mysuru.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Annexure to Court Building, Bengaluru-560001.
(By Sri. Divakar Maddur.M, HCGP) …Petitioner ..Respondent 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 Crime No.333/2008 (C.C.No.10/2009) of Mysore South Police Station, Mysore for the offence P/U/S 392 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Mysore South Police have charge-sheeted the petitioner in Crime No.333/2008 for the offences punishable under Section 392 of IPC, which is pending in C.C.No.10/2009 on the file of II Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Mysuru.
2. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail in the said case. Thereafter, since 17.09.2009 he failed to appear before the Court and his presence could not be secured irrespective of taking necessary steps.
3. In 2017, he filed Crl. Misc. No.151/2017 before the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail which came to be rejected on 30.01.2017. Thereafter, he has filed the present petition on 11.01.2019.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to the death of his parents and ailments of his children, petitioner could not appear before the Court. The Sessions Court observed that the death certificate of the parents of the petitioner and the medical records of his children related for the period March 2016 to May 2016. Therefore, the Sessions Court did not accept the reasons assigned and rejected the anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner has jumped the bail condition.
5. Absolutely, there is no material or acceptable justification for petitioner’s default for more than 10 years. He has abused the bail granted to him.
6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh V/s. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171 has held that the proclaimed offender is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
7. Under the circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
KPS Sd/- JUDGE