Karnataka High Court
Jagadish Chandra Aras vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Dated this the 23rd day of August 2017
Before
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Criminal Petition No.101788/2017
Between
Jagadish Chandra Aras,
S/o Subramanya Aras,
Age: 42 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o: Doddamma Temple,
Next Floor, Manorayanapalya,
R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru. ...Petitioner
(By Sri. R. H. Angadi, Advocate )
And
The State of Karnataka,
Through Ankola P.S.,
Rept. By SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench. ...Respondent
(By Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., seeking that petitioner may kindly be enlarged
on temporary bail for three months in connection with
S.C. No.129/2014 pending on the file of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (KCOCA Special
Spl. Judge) In Ankola P.S. Crime No. 245 of 2013 for the
2
offences punishable under Sections 302, 353, 307,
120B, 212, 201, 419, 468, 471, 384, 388, 506 read with
149 IPC and Sections 3, 8, 25 (1B), (a)(c) of the Arms
Act, 1959 and Sections 3(1)(i) 3(ii), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of
Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000, so far
petitioner/accused No. 10 is concerned.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court, made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.10 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 353, 307, 120B, 212, 201, 419, 468, 471, 384, 388, 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 8, 25, (1B), (a)(c) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(1)(i), 3(ii), 3(2), 3(3) and 3(4) of Karnataka Control of Organized Crime Act, 2000, in respondent Police Station Crime No.245/2013.
3
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.10 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.10 made the submission that, on an earlier occasion, the present petitioner had filed a bail petition and, subsequently, he withdrew it; thereafterwards, again he filed a bail petition which came to be rejected by this Court considering the merits of the case. Now, the learned counsel submits that he is not on the merits of the case, but the petitioner/accused No.10 is seeking his release on bail on health grounds. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the letter dated 25.07.2017 addressed by the Medical Officer, Central Prison, Hindalaga, Belagavi, to the Chief Administrative Officer, District Court, Belagavi, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is suffering from severe health ailments, and the learned counsel made the submission 4 that as the condition of petitioner/accused No.10 is serious, it is necessary to take the petitioner/accused No.10 to a private hospital and to get him the treatment immediately. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that, at least, for a limited period, the petitioner/accused No.1 may be released on bail.
4. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that, apart from the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner/accused No.10 has also been charge-sheeted for the offences under the Arms Act and so also for the offences under the Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act and there are serious allegations against the present petitioner. He also submitted that this Court has already considered the entire merits of the case and has rejected the earlier bail petition of the present petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner can be given the treatment as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. 5 No.129/2014. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader submitted that this is not a fit case for allowing the petition and grant of bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition and the entire charge-sheet materials, the letter of the Medical Officer, Central Prison, Hindalaga, addressed to the Chief Administrative Officer, District Court, Belagavi. So also, I have perused the order, dated 08.08.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No.129/2014.
6. Sofar as the merits of the case are concerned, this Court has already rejected the earlier bail application of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is seeking his release on bail only on medical grounds. No doubt, it is true that as per the letter dated 25.07.2017 addressed by the Medical Officer, the petitioner is suffering from health ailments, but the learned Sessions Judge, Belagavi, has already taken care 6 of the same by directing that the petitioner/accused No.1 has to be taken immediately to some private hospital of his choice at the cost of the petitioner and that the petitioner/accused No.1 has to be taken to the said private hospital by providing adequate security. This order of the learned Sessions Judge is a well-reasoned order. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner/accused No.10 is not entitled to be granted with bail as sought for in the bail application. However, the Jail Authorities are hereby directed to take the petitioner immediately to any private hospital of his choice, at Belagavi, and to get him the treatment at his cost, and to take the petitioner/accused No.10 to the said private hospital with proper security arrangements. With this observation, the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kms