Karnataka High Court
Ashraf vs State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2021
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.301/2021
BETWEEN:
Ashraf
s/o.Mohammad
aged about 42 years
Shylaja Extension
Kushalnagar, Somwarpet
Kodagu-571 236 ..Petitioner
(By Ms.Raksha Keerthana., Advocate
For Sri Kemparaju, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Kushalnagar Police Station
Kodagu
Rep.by SPP, High Court Building
Bengalauru-560 001 ..Respondent
(By Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the petitioner praying that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the
2
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.239/2014 (CC.No.18/2016) of Kushalnagar Police
Station, Kodagu District for the offences punishable
under Sections 504, 307, 324, 323 r/w. Section 34 of
IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.239/2014 registered by Kushalnagar Police for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 307, 324, 323 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
2. It is alleged in the complaint filed by one Srikanth who is the employee of a Bar and Restaurant, before the police that this petitioner along with accused Nos.1 and 3 came to Bar at 12.20 a.m. on 30.8.2014 and demanded to supply Brandy, when they said that the bar is already closed and they cannot supply brandy, accused Nos.1 to 3 said to have abused the 3 complainant. Accused No.1 said to have assaulted CW.2 with knife and other accused said to have assaulted him. After assaulting, accused Nos.1 to 3 ran away from the spot in a car.
3. After registering the case, police said to have arrested accused Nos.1 and 3. Accused No.2, the present petitioner has absconded and hence absconding charge sheet has been filed. The case was split up and due to continuous absence of this petitioner, warrant, proclamation and attachment were issued under Sections 70, 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. and in spite of the same, police were not able to trace the petitioner. The co-accused are already facing the trial before the Sessions Judge and this petitioner has approached the Sessions Judge for granting anticipatory bail, which came to be dismissed on 18.12.2020. Hence, he is before this Court. 4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and he is not aware of registration of the case. He is doing fruit vending business at Bengaluru and his mother is staying in Kodagu. He came to know about filing of the charge sheet only when attachment warrant has been issued by the Court. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The injuries sustained by the injured are simple in nature. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP has seriously objected the bail petition and contended that this petitioner has absconded from the date of offence. Till date his whereabouts are not known, in spite of issuance of warrant and proclamation, police were not able to secure his presence. If he is granted anticipatory bail, he may likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. He has delayed the 5 process of disposal of the case. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly the police have filed absconded charge sheet against the petitioner. Address of the petitioner is shown as Kushalnagar, Kodagu. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are already facing trial before the Sessions Judge. Accused Nos.1 to 3 came to the Bar and asked for supplying of brandy, when the same was refused by CW.1, they said to have assaulted the injured. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he caught hold of CW.2 and accused No.1 stabbed him. But looking to the case of the prosecution, after the assault, the petitioner absconded and his whereabouts were not known. The police were not able to arrest this petitioner. In spite of issuance of warrant, proclamation and attachment under Sections 70, 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., the presence of this petitioner is not 6 secured by the police. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is doing fruit vending business at Bengaluru City, but looking into the entire case, the petitioner has successfully delayed the process of the case for more than six years and absconded. Therefore, merely because the offence alleged is under Section 307 of IPC and injuries suffered by the injured are in simple in nature that itself is not a ground for granting anticipatory bail. If the petitioner is granted bail, he may again abscond and tamper with the prosecution witnesses, which cannot be ruled out. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *ck/-