Karnataka High Court
Madappa @ Madu S/O Kondayya Bhovi vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101529/2017
BETWEEN:
MADAPPA @ MADU S/O KONDAYYA BHOVI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: BALLIGURAVA MANDALAM,
TQ: ADDANKI, DIST: ANDHRA PRADESH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH MUNDGOD POLICE STATION.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR-HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO
ALLOW THE PETITION AND GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER (ACCUSED) IN C.C.NO.86 OF 2017 (OLD
C.C.NO.229 OF 1988) (LPC NO.1 OF 1994) ON THE FILE OF
THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUNDGOD FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 366-A OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC MUNDGOD.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 366A of IPC registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.38/1987 and now pending in C.C.No.86/2017 (old C.C.No.229/1988) (LPC No.1/1994 ) on the file of the Civil Judge JMFC, Mundgod.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that the uncle of the petitioner lodged the complaint alleging that the petitioner came to the house of the complainant from Gopinathapur village and stayed in the house of the complainant for about 10-12 days. Thereafter, he made the petitioner to board the bus to Gopinathapur. The further allegation that from that day he did not find Shantavva aged about 15- :3: 16 years, who is the daughter of his neighbour Ishwarayya, the milk vendor. Petitioner used to visit the house of his neighbour suspecting that petitioner might have taken her to Gopinathapur, the complainant went to Gopinathapur and he found her along with the petitioner. The petitioner and Shantavva were brought before the Police for further action. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the said offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has not received any summons from the concerned Court after he was released on bail and that was the reason for his non- appearance before the Court. He has submitted that petitioner is having parents, sister, daughter and sister- :4: in-law. It is his contention that the statement of the witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer show that the victim was aged 18 years as on the date of the alleged incident. He has also submitted that even looking to the statement of other witnesses there is no prima-facie material against the petitioner and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Hence, he has submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission, that after releasing on bail, the petitioner has not at all appeared before the Court continuously for a period of 30 years. Hence, he submitted that he has not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There are :5: statements of witnesses recorded by the I.O. during investigation.
7. Before coming to the merits of the case of prosecution, the petitioner/accused has to explain about his conduct of non appearance before the Court continuously for a period of 30 years. The crime is of the year 1987, firstly it was registered in Kollegal P.S. and subsequently on jurisdiction point, it was transferred to Mundgod P.S. Then, he was released on bail by the Court, thereafter, he is not at all appeared before the Court. It is the contention of the learned counsel that he was not served with any summons and that was the reason for his non appearance before the Court.
8. Looking to the materials they goes to show that, even the case was ordered to enter in the long pending register, so before that the steps have been already exhausted as per Section 82 and 83 of Criminal :6: Procedure Code, after that only, it was ordered to be transferred to the long pending register. When that is so, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Apart from that the period of 30 years is considered to be the prolonged period. Hence, even if he is released on bail, there is no guarantee that he will appear before the Court. Therefore, he is not entitled to be granted with bail. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
However, the concerned Trial Court is hereby directed to take up the case on priority basis and to dispose of the same as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Intimate the concerned Court Accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR/RHR