Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Venkataraju K vs Rahasa Rai B

High Court Of Karnataka|26 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.1571/2019 Between:
Venkataraju K., Aged 34 years, S/o Kolalappa, R/at Bodichipalli Village, Denkanikoti, Krishnagiri Taluk, Tamil Nadu – 635 001. … Petitioner (By Sri Chandrahasa Rai B., Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, By Electronic City Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru City, Rept. By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.62/2014 (S.C. No.189/2016) of Electronic City Traffic Police Station, Bangalore City for the offences p/u/s 185, 3(1), 181, 66(1), 192A of Indian Motor Vehicles Act and Section 304 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the execution of non-bailable warrant in S.C.No.189/2016.
2. The case of prosecution is that a complaint was lodged in Crime No.62/2014 as regards the commission of offences under Section 304 of IPC and Sections 185(3)(1), 181, 66(1), 192(A) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. It is stated that the petitioner has obtained bail as regards the proceedings in Crime No.62/2014. It is submitted that the petitioner did not appear subsequent to the committal proceedings. After issuance of non-bailable warrant, he has been secured on 27.11.2018 and is in custody since then.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the absence is due to bonafide reasons. Though it is noticed that there has been lapse on the part of the petitioner, a final opportunity could be granted noticing the nature of offences with respect to which complaint has been made. The presence of the petitioner can be secured by imposing stringent conditions in order to ensure his co-operation in the trial.
4. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 62/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 304 of IPC and Sections 185(3)(1), 181, 66(1), 192(A) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without leave of the Court.
(iii) The petitioner shall physically present himself and mark his attendance before the concerned Station House Officer once in month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial (iv) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(v) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(vi) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vii) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VP
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Venkataraju K vs Rahasa Rai B

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
26 July, 2019
Judges
  • S Sunil Dutt Yadav