Karnataka High Court
Akash S/O Ganapati Pai vs State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNAT AKA
DHARWAD B ENCH
DAT ED THIS THE 5 T H DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE P.N.DESAI
CRL.P.NO.10 0839 OF 2022
BETWEEN
AKASH S/O GANAPATI PA I
AGE. 26 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SER VICE,
R/O NEKAR NAGAR,
OLD HU BBALLI, HU BB ALLI
...PETITIONER
(B Y SRI.A A KALEBU DDE, ADVOCATE)
AN D
STATE OF KARNATAKA
KESHWAPUR P.S.
REPRES ENT ED B Y ITS PUB LIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COU RT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD, DIST-DHARWAD
...RESPONDENT
(B Y SMT . GIRIJA H IREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CR IMINAL PETIT ION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKIN G TO RELEAS E THE PET ITIONER
IN ITIAT ED IN KES HWAPU R P.S. CRIME NO.210/ 2016 AND
CC NO.929/ 2016, ON T HE FILE OF II JMFC COU RT, AND
IN S.C. NO.45/ 2018 FOR T HE OFFE NCE PU NISHAB LE U/S
394, 397, 473 R/ W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDIN G ON
THE F ILE OF I A DDIT IONAL DISTRICT AND SESS IO NS
JUDGE COU RT , DHARWAD, SITT ING AT HUBB ALLI.
2
THIS PETIT ION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, T HE COU RT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Proced ure (for short herein after 'Cr.P.C.') to enlarg e the petitioner on bail in Crime No.210/2016 of Keshwapur Police (Pending in SC No.45/2018 on the file of I Ad dl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi) for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 397, 473 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. It is contend ed that Keshavap ur Police have registered the case in Crime No.210/2016 on the basis of the complaint filed by one Sanjeev Naroti alleging that accused nos.1 to 3 by restraining CW.7 at Railway quarters, Club road , Hubballi by showing knife robbed his bag containing Rupees Twelve lakhs and escaped in the bike of accused no.2. It is also alleged that this accused no.4 who was working in the Store of CW.8 gave information reg arding 3 carrying of money by comp lainant-CW.7 from the shop. Police after investigation filed charg e sheet ag ainst accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 394, 397 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter, p etitioner and other accused appeared before trial Court and they were granted bail. Subsequently, this p etitioner remained absent and NBW came to be issued and his b ail petition rejected. Hence, he has preferred the present petition.
3. Heard Sri.A.A.Kalebudde, Adv. For petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that due to Covid-19 pandamic and SOP, p etitioner was unable to contact his advocate and application could not be filed for recalling the warrant. Petitioner subsequently ap peared but his bail p etition was rejected and he is in custody since 12.01.2022. He is read y to ab ide by any conditions and attend Court 4 without fail on all d ates of hearing. With this prays to allow the petition.
5. Heard learned HCGP and perused the material availab le on records and ord er passed by the learn ed Sessions Judge and also order sheet.
6. It is evident that earlier this petitioner was granted bail. He also app eared b efore the Court for some occasions. On some occasions Court has ad journed the case suomoto due to Covid-19 pandamic and also SOP. Subsequently, he has remained absent. Other accused also remained absent. Subsequently, the accused not appeared and NBW is issued as no app lication was filed for exemption of his presence. Now, the charg e is alread y framed. The case is now posted for fixing date for trial.
7. It is settled princip le of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an excep tion. While g ranting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consider, (1) the seriousness of the 5 offence, (2) character of the accused, (3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused, (4) reasonab le p rob ab ilities of p resence of the accused not being secured at trial, (5) reasonable app rehension of witnesses being tampered with and (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a court is asked to ad mit the accused to b ail in a non-bailable offence.
8. It is duty of the accused to app ear b efore the Court on all d ates of hearing and ab ide by the cond itions g ranted while releasing him on b ail. Because of his absence, the trial was be held up. The learned counsel for p etitioner stated that there was some communication g ap between accused no.4 and counsel appearing on his b ehalf and so this has resulted in issuance of NBW. Keeping in mind , the settled principle of law reg ard ing b ail and also purpose of b ail and has petitioner has undertaken and counsel for accused no.4 assured that he will 6 app ear b efore Court without fail henceforth, the petition deserves to be allowed.
9. Accordingly, I proceed to p ass the following:
ORDER The p etition filed by the p etitioner/accused und er Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Consequently, the p etitioner/accused b y name Akash S/o Ganapati Pai, is ord ered to be enlarg ed on bail, in Crime No.210/2016 of Keshwap ur Police Station, Hubb alli for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 397, 473 r/w 34 of IPC, on he executing a p ersonal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rup ees Fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court of trial or Committal Court, where the case is now p end ing on the following conditions:
i) The p etitioner shall appear before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing unless he is exempted by genuine reasons.7
ii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court, without permission of the Trial Court, till the d isposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE Hmb/-