Bangalore District Court
Kemparaju A.L., Hc-8166 vs Raja Alias Chataraja Alias Ribak on 8 December, 2025
KABC030072642022
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 29-01-2022
Registered on : 29-01-2022
Decided on : 08-12-2025
Duration : 3 years, 10 months, 10 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 08th Day of December, 2025
C. C. No.2014/2022
(Crime No.285/2021)
State by R.T. Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Raja @ Chati Raja @ Ribaq,
Aged about 38 years,
S/o Sri Bairappa,
R/at No.14/1, 3rd Cross,
Muttappa Block,
Ganga Nagar,
Bengaluru City-32. ... Accused
KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022
1. Date of commission of 23-12-2021
offence
2. Date of FIR 23-12-2021
3. Date of Charge sheet 30-12-2021
4. Name of Complainant Sri Kemparaju.A.L., HC
of R.T. Nagar PS
5. Offences complained of Under Section 229(A)
of IPC
6. Date of framing 24-06-2025
charge/plea
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 17-10-2025
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 08-12-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 08-12-2025
11. Final order Accused is convicted
12. Date of Sentence -
2
KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of R.T. Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable under Section 229(A) of Indian Penal Code.
2. Prosecution Case: The present accused being accused in SC No.91/2008, pending on the file of Hon'ble CCH-I, after obtaining bail in the said case has absconded and remained absent to court proceedings since 12-03-2021, as a result of which, the Hon'ble Court had issued non bailable warrant against accused however he did not appear in court.
3. First Information Report: On the basis of report/first information given by CW1, CW4/PW3 Sri Veerabhadrappa, PSI registered Crime No.285/2021 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 229(A) of Indian Penal Code, prepared FIR as per Ex.P3, sent the same to the Court and to his superior officers.
4. Investigation: Thereafter PW3 apprehended the accused, recorded the voluntary statement of accused and witnesses, collected the document as pe Ex.P4, report from CW3 as per Ex.P2 and submitted charge sheet against accused for the alleged offence.
3 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/20225. The accused is in judicial custody under the body warrant.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offence alleged against the accused.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. have been furnished to the accused.
8. Substance of accusation by way of Plea: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused, substance of accusation by way of Plea for the offence punishable U/Sec.229(A) of IPC has been recorded, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 4 witnesses, examined 3 witness and exhibited 4 documents and closed their side. However on account of examination of CW1, the examination of CW2 is given up by the order dated 02/12/2025.
10. Accused statement as per section 313 of Cr.PC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C., 4 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022 wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the present accused being accused in SC No.91/2008, pending on the file of Hon'ble CCH-I, after obtaining bail in the said case has absconded and remained absent to court proceedings since 12-03-2021, as a result of which, the Hon'ble Court had issued non bailable warrant against accused however he did not appear in court thereby resulted in commission of an offence punishable under Sec.
229(A) of IPC?
2. What order?
5 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/202213. The findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative Point No.2 : As per final order REASONS
14. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the following witnesses i. CW1 Sri Kemparaju, A.L., HC of R.T.Nagara PS, being informant as PW1 deposed that CW4 deputed him and CW1 to trace out the accused, who is the accused No.2 in SC No.91/2018 pending on the file of Hon'ble CCH-1 Court, u/Sec.302 R/W 34 of IPC arisen from Cr.No.275/2011, who was absconded from 12-03-2021, after being released on bail, accordingly he and CW2 apprehended the accused near the bus stand going to Jayamahal and produced him before CW1 along with the report as per Ex.P1.
ii. CW3 Sri Hanumantha Nayak, the PC of examined as PW2 deposed about the production of certified copy of order in SC No.275/2011 to CW4 and submitted report as per Ex.P2.
6 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022iii. CW4 Sri Veerabhadrappa, the PSI of examined as PW3 and deposed that he deputed CW1 to trace out the accused in SC No.91/2018 pending on the file of CCH-I, in turn he produced the accused along with Ex.P1 report, he registered FIR as per Ex.P3, recorded the voluntary statement of accused and statement of CW2, obtained the order sheet of SC No.91/2018 from CW3 as per Ex.P4 and after completion of investigation submitted charge sheet.
15. The relevant Provision Section 229(A) IPC reads as follows:
Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in court.
-- Whoever, having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.7 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022
Explanation: The punishment under this section is
(a) in addition to the punishment to which the offender would be liable on a conviction for the offence with which he has been charged;
and
(b) without prejudice to the power of the court to order forfeiture of the bond.
The main objective of insertion of Section 229(A) of IPC was to ensure the presence of accused who had been charged and that the case is not unnecessarily delayed due to non-appearance of the accused person.
16. A careful perusal of Section 229(A) of IPC depicts that it is applicable where the accused "has been charged for an offence" and who fails to appear on date fixed for hearing without sufficient cause wherein the burden of proving the same shall be on the accused person.
17. The IO/PW3 has secured the certified copies of order sheet of SC No.91/2018 on the file of proceedings of Hon'ble Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, wherein it was clear that the 8 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022 accused was arrayed as an accused for the alleged offences punishable under section 341, 302 read with Sec.34 of IPC as he did not appear before the court and hence issued Non Bailable Warrant from 03-02- 2021, 12-03-2021, 15-04-2021, 08-06-2021, 12-07- 2021, 05-08-2021, 01-09-2021, 27-09-2021. On 23- 12-2021, the concerned police produced accused before Hon'ble CCH-1 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The accused produced before this court by securing him under body warrant.
18. The burden to show that there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance was upon the accused person. The word 'sufficient cause' has been defined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sabramati Gas Limited Vs Shah Alloys Limited reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 9 /2023 IN SC 10) where the Apex Court in paragraph No. 25 held that ''sufficient cause is the cause for which party could not be blamed". The contention of accused is that he met with accident and hence he was unable to attend the court, however failed to produce any substantial documents before the court as such supporting medical documents. Once the accused is enlarged on bail, the appearance of the accused till the disposal of the criminal case is mandatory and the evidence of PW1 to PW3 remained unchallenged on the ground of informing his counsel and failed to engage the service of State Legal Aid. This court cannot impose the accused to accept the counsel from the Legal Aid 9 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022 when he was taking the time to send his private counsel to appear on his behalf. Considering his long non-appearance in SC No.91/2018 , it is clear that he caused delay to the proceedings.
19. Thus the accused does not show that he was beyond his control for which he cannot be blamed or prevented from appearing in SC No.91/2018 thereby led to his non-appearance in the said case and failed to produce the medical report in support of his claim as per his defence in statement of accused. Thus, the case against the accused under 229(A) of IPC has been proved and accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.229(A) of IPC, thereby the point No.1 is answered in affirmative.
20. Point No.2:- In view of the above findings and reasons given on point No.1, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER i. Acting under Section 255(2) of BNSS., accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 229(A) of IPC.10 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022
II. The Convict is sentenced to under go SI for a period of one months and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default the convict shall under go 15 days simple imprisonment.
iii. Office is hereby directed to verify records and issue conviction warrant against accused through jurisdictional SHO and Investigation Officer.
iv. Intimate the same to the jail authorities for further needful.
v. Furnish free copy of this Judgment to the accused forthwith.
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Kemparaju, A.L. /HC PW2 : Sri Hanumantha Nayak/PC PW3 : Sri Veerabhadrappa/PSI/IO 11 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022
Documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P1 : Report/PW1
Ex.P2 : Report/PW2
Ex.P3 : FIR/PW4
Ex.P4 : C/C of order sheet in SC
No.91/2018/PW3
Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution: Nil Witnesses examined for defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of defence: Nil Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.12 KABC030072642022 CC 2014/2022
08-12-2025 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER i. Acting under Section 255(2) of BNSS., accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 229(A) of IPC.
ii. The Convict is sentenced to under go SI for a period of one months and a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default the convict shall under go 15 days simple imprisonment.
iii. Office is hereby directed to verify records and issue conviction warrant against accused through jurisdictional SHO and Investigation Officer.
iv. Intimate the same to the jail authorities for further needful.
v. Furnish free copy of this Judgment to the accused forthwith.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru 13