Karnataka High Court
Bhuvanesha N.V vs State By Amruthahalli on 11 January, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 9178 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9178 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
BHUVANESHA N.V
S/O VERUPAKSHA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NIDANURU VILLAGE,
ABBANA POST, ALURU TALUKU,
HASSAN DISTRICT 571 235.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BRIJESH RAJPUT., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR M
STATE BY AMRUTHAHALLI
Location: High
Court Of Karnataka POLICE STATION,
REP. BY HIGH COURT PLEADER,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR - HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.189/2013 (S.C.NO.1471/2019) OF
AMRUTHAHALLI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 397 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE
LVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.P No. 9178 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.189/2013 of Amruthalli Police Station, pending in S.C.No.1471/2019 on the file of learned LVIII (CCH-59) Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 397 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant- Sri. Prashanth.
2. Heard Sri. Brijesh Rajput, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and law abiding citizen. He has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He is having reasonable apprehension of being arrested by the police. Therefore, he is before this Court. Even though, the incident had taken place on 31.07.2013, much later, the charge sheet came to be filed. S.C.No.1471/2019 -3- CRL.P No. 9178 of 2022 was pending before the LVIII Additional City Civil and Session's Judge, Bengaluru. The petitioner had appeared before the Court and he was on bail. Subsequently, on 12.12.2018, bail granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and split-up charge sheet was ordered to be filed. Accordingly, split-up charge sheet was filed and now, the matter is pending in S.C.108/2014. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. Initially, he was apprehended and was released on bail during crime stage. Subsequently, he was very irregular in attending the Court. Finally, bail was cancelled vide order dated 12.12.2018 and it was ordered to file a split-up charge sheet. Therefore, split-up charge sheet came to be filed and S.C.No.1471/2019 came to be registered. Since the petitioner -4- CRL.P No. 9178 of 2022 was already apprehended and he has violated the conditions imposed while granting bail, the present petition under Section 438 is not maintainable. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
6. Even according to the petitioner, he was apprehended in the present case during crime stage and was released on bail. Subsequently, as per the documents produced split-up charge sheet was filed. Accused Nos.4 to 8 were acquitted in S.C.No.108/2014 and split-up charge sheet was filed and S.C.No.1471/2019 is registered against the present petitioner -5- CRL.P No. 9178 of 2022 and other absconding accused. Since the petitioner was already apprehended and released on bail, he is not entitled to invoke section 438 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is not a case for pre-arrest bail.
7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE SKS