Sri M Amarendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2019

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri M Amarendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2019

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                            1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

                         BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4704/2018 c/w CRIMINAL
PETITION Nos. 4705/2018, 4706/2018, 4707/2018,
 4708/2018, 4709/2018, 4710/2018, 4711/2018,
          4712/2018 AND 4713/2018

BETWEEN:

Sri. M. Amarendra
S/o late Munivenkatappa
Aged 48 years
Residing at Devanayakanahalli village,
Channarayapattana Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District - 562135.
                                         ... Petitioner
                                          (common)

(By Sri. K. Nagabhushan Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
Tumkur Town Police Station
Tumkur - 572101.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court complex,
Bangalore - 560 001.
                                         ...Respondent
                                          (common)

(By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl.SPP)
                             2




     These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 438
of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
Nos.324/2013, 321/2013, 323/2013, 322/2013, 329/2018,
330/2013, 328/2013, 327/2013, 326/2013 and 325/2013
of Tumkur Town Police Station, Tumkuru District, for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w
34 of IPC.


     These Criminal Petitions coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:-


                       ORDER

Petitioner is common in all these petitions. He has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 470 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in the following crime numbers, namely;

324/2013, 321/2013, 323/2013, 322/2013, 329/2018, 330/2013, 328/2013, 327/2013, 326/2013 and 325/2013 respectively of Tumkur Town Police Station, Tumkuru District.

2. Petitioner had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.323/2013 and by considered order dated 05.06.2018, the bail petition was rejected for the reason that the offences alleged against the petitioner had taken place in the year 2013 and Investigating Officer could not find it necessary to arrest the petitioner during investigation and as such, there was no apprehension of arrest of the petitioner as on the date of making application. Secondly, the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application moved by the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.570/2017 dated 12.05.2017 had noted that the petitioner was already granted anticipatory bail in some of the cases, but he did not surrender before the respondent-police and did not co-operate with the investigation. These facts are applicable to all the cases which disentitles the petitioner for anticipatory bail. That apart "accusations" being the same, there cannot be a revival of "apprehension of arrest" which was earlier considered by this Court in the earlier application (vide 4 2003 CRL.L.J. 1). Therefore, successive petitions under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., cannot be maintained.

3. It is also borne on record that the warrants issued against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate in all the above cases are pending execution. Therefore, it is proper for the petitioner to surrender before the Court and obtain regular bail. For all these reasons, none of the above petitions deserve to be allowed.

4. Accordingly, all the petitions are dismissed. If the petitioner surrenders before the Court and moves application for regular bail, the trial court shall consider the same as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srl.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court