IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7636/2017 BETWEEN:
SURESH @ SURI S/O NAGALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT KALLUPALYA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT 572101 (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIYURDURGA POLICE- REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001.
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.67/2016 OF HULIYURDURGA POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT (S.C.NO. 86/2017) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 224, 353, 307, 397, 427 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 OF THE PREVENTION OF DAMAGES TO PUBLIC PROPERTY ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 224, 353, 307, 397, 427 of IPC, and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.67/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that, earlier on merits the Sessions Court has already granted bail to the petitioner. Thereafter, on two occasions, when the petitioner remained absent to appear before the concerned Court, his counsel filed an exemption applications and thereafter as the petitioner was arrested in another case he was not able to file exemption application, hence, NBW was issued and by issuing the body warrant, petitioner was again taken to custody. He also submitted that since nine (9) months petitioner is in custody and the petitioner undertakes to appear before the concerned Court regularly. Hence, submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the date on which petitioner came to be arrested in another case, there was 2-3 months time even after issuing NBW, even then the petitioner was not appeared before the concerned Court.
Hence, submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
6. Earlier once the petitioner was released on bail considering the merits of the matter by the concerned Sessions Court. It is true that petitioner remained absent from appearing before the Court on some adjourned dates and again he was taken to custody, since nine months petitioner is in custody. Petitioner has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. When the merits have already been considered and the petitioner was released on bail, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 224, 353, 307, 397, 427 of IPC, and under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.67/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR