IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION No.2855/2019 BETWEEN:
Yogesha @ Yogi, S/o Dharmaraj, Aged 22 years, R/at Near Mulkatamma Temple, Gangondanahalli, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 073. …Petitioner (By Sri.Chandrahasa Rai B, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara District, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ... Respondent (Sri.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.256/2017 (S.C.No.99/2017) of Tavarekere P.S., Ramanagara for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 120B, 307, 302 R/W 149 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking his enlargement on bail in S.C.No.99/2017 pending before the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Ramanagara, which is for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114, 120B, 307, 302 R/W 149 of IPC.
2. Admittedly, the present petitioner was earlier enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.2542/2018 on 23.04.2018. According to the petitioner, he is said to have been appearing before the Sessions Court regularly till 05.12.2018. However, due to his ill-health and injury said to have been suffered by him in a road accident, he was under bed rest, as such, he could not attend the Court thereafter. In the meantime, by the order of the Sessions Court, he was arrested on 11.02.2019. His subsequent bail application before the learned Sessions Judge also came to be rejected. It is thereafter, he has preferred the present petition.
3. A perusal of the material placed before this Court go to show that the petitioner even after his enlargement on bail has failed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge and the said learned Sessions Judge in his order passed in S.C.No.99/2017 dated 27.03.2019 has made a specific observation that the absence of the accused/petitioner has come in the way of the said Court to proceed in the lines of framing of charge. When this Court while allowing Criminal Petition No.2542/2018, had imposed a condition upon the accused/petitioner mandating him to appear before the trial Court, the accused/petitioner has failed to comply the said condition. Even to convince that he had sustained any injury in the alleged road accident or that he was under bed rest, he has not produced any material including the medical certificate. Therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is, the conduct of the petitioner has shown that he has not appeared before the trial Court on the dates of hearing, which has caused delay in proceeding further by the trial Court. It also go to show that securing the accused for the trial would be very difficult or impossible. In such a situation, once again granting him a relief of bail and enlarging him on bail would not be in the best interest of justice. As such, the petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE cbc