Karnataka High Court
Maruthi S/O Mudakappa Hiremani vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101038 OF 2019
BETWEEN
MARUTHI S/O MUDAKAPPA HIREMANI
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: BALUTAGI, TQ: YELBURGA,
DIST: KOPPAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.B. C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH KUKANOOR P.S.),
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION GRANT A
REGULAR BAIL IN CRIME NO.113/2014 REGISTERED BY
KUKANOOR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC (C.C.
NO.347/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC YELBURGA), IN SO FOR AS THIS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to grant him bail in C.C. No.347/2014 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Yelburga arising out of Crime No.113/2014 registered by Kukanoor Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short).
2. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent/state.
3. The gist of the complaint is that, the petitioner pretended himself as the District Coordinator working in Women and Child welfare Department and he also gave an impression that he has been given a departmental Car and the accused No.2 is the driver of the said Car. He visited :3: Somapur, Siddenakoppa, Hirehanchinal, Bhattapanahalli and Kukanoor village Anganwadi and verified the attendance register and assured the public of the said village that he will provide job in Anganwadi and also gave assurance of opening new Anganwadi centers. In order to release old-age pensions for poor backward classes and loan of Rs.35,000/- poor economically backward people, he received money in collusion with accused No.2 and committed the alleged offences.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 that since more than 10 months, the petitioner/accused No.1 is in custody. It is submitted that the offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is his further submission that earlier the petitioner/accused No.1 was granted bail and was directed to furnish a solvent surety. But he was unable to furnish solvent surety and released on execution of his personal bond. Subsequently, after filing of the charge-sheet, as the petitioner/accused did not appear before the Court, NBW cause to be issued and he was :4: arrested and produced before the Trial Court on 04.10.2018. Thereafter, he filed an application for releasing him on bail but it was rejected by the Trial Court. Even the District Court has also rejected the bail application. It is submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is ready to abide by all the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused No.1 may be given one more opportunity to improve himself. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and contended that the petitioner/accused No.1 was produced before the Court at an initial stage and was enlarged on personal bond with a direction to furnish solvent surety for the like sum, but thereafter he has absconded and a split-up charge-sheet came to be filed against him. It is submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1, in spite of repeated issuance of NBW against him, was not secured and NBW :5: was not executed. It is her further contention that the petitioner/accused No.1 was only arrested on 29.11.2018. It is submitted that he has jumped the bail and as such, there is no question of granting bail to him. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the records, the Kukanoor police had apprehended accused No.1 and 2 and produced them before the JMFC Court, Yelaburga and they were enlarged on bail and since accused No.1 did not furnish solvent surety for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, he remained in judicial custody. Thereafter, he wrote a letter through Superintendent of Prison, Koppal and on the basis of the said representation, he was released on execution of his personal bond as per the order dated 22.09.2014. On 09.01.2015, by considering his request next date of hearing was fixed, but on that day, he :6: remained absent and the Trial Court issued NBW against him. Thereafter, he was absconding for a long time, NBW got executed on 29.11.2018 and he was apprehended. Thereafter he moved a bail application before the Trial Court, which came to be rejected. Subsequently, he filed Criminal Miscellaneous before the learned District Judge, but that was also rejected. Though several contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for petitioner/accused, the records show that the accused was ordered to be released on bail on execution of his personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with solvent surety for the like sum, but he did not furnish the solvent surety and only on his representation he was released on execution of his personal bond. Thereafter, he remained absent and case has been split up and NBW was issued against hi. It is pertinent to note that though he was released on bail on 19.01.2015, he did not appear before the Court and NBW was issued several times and ultimately he was secured under NBW on 29.11.2018. The petitioner/accused No.1 was absconding since from nearly :7: three years and he did not appear before the Court below. The conduct of the petitioner/accused No.1 shows that he is not having any respect to the orders of the Court and he has jumped the bail. It is a well established principle of law that when already the accused was released on bail and jumped the bail and bail conditions, then he is not entitled for any relaxation of the conditions to release him on bail. If he is released on bail, again he would abscond, which may ultimately hamper the trial. The case was registered in the year 2014 and till 2018, no progress has been made. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.
8. However, the petitioner/accused No.1 is at liberty to file petition after examination of the complainant and such application may be considered without taking into consideration the above said observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE yan