Karnataka High Court
Shri. Maruti S/O Hanamant Golasangi vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2024
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3336
CRL.P No. 100261 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100261 OF 2024 (439(1)(b)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. MARUTI
S/O HANAMANT GOLASANGI
AGE. 58 YEARS,
OCC. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
AND AGRICULTURE
R/O.MUGALKHOD
TQ. RAIBAG
DIST. BELAGAVI
2. SHRI. VINAYAK @ VINOD
S/O. MARUTI GOLASANGI
AGE. 25 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O. MUGALKHOD,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR TALUK.RAIBAG.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Date: 2024.02.15 3. SHRI. HANAMANTH
11:58:57 +0530 S/O. GANGAPPA GOLASANGI
AGE. 52 YEARS,
OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DASAR THOT, MUGALKHOD,
TALUK.RAIBAG,
DIST.BELAGAVI.
4. SHRI. SURESH
S/O. BABU GOLASANGI
AGE. 33 YEARS,
OCC.BUSINESS,
R/O.WARD NO. 4TH TERADAL,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3336
CRL.P No. 100261 of 2024
TALUK-RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI.
5. SHRI. RAJASEKHAR
S/O. BIMAPPA JAGANOOR
AGE. 38 YEARS,
OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O.DASAR TOT MUGALKHOD,
TALUK.RAIBHAG,
DIST.BELGAUM.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHARAD M. PATIL., ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(P.P. JAMKHANDI),
TERDAL P.S. BANAHATTI CIRCLE,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.T.P.MALIPATIL, AGA)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 (1)(b) OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT TIME TO THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1, 4, 6 TO 8 FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO SEEK REGULAR BAIL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 13.12.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.5286/2023 PASSED BY
IST ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT,
SITTING AT JAMKHANDI, ARISING FROM CRIME NO. 87/2023
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 323, 354,
354(B), 307, 448, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE
FILE BEFORE THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BAGALKOT, TO SIT AT JAMKHANDI.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:3336
CRL.P No. 100261 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition under Section 439 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners with a prayer to modify condition No.(3) imposed by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi, while allowing the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.5286/2023 vide order dated 09.11.2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Petitioners herein, who are arraigned as accused in Crime No.87/2023 registered by Terdal Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 448, 323, 324, 354(B), 307, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, had filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at at Jamkhandi in Crl.Misc.No.5286/2023 and the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3336 CRL.P No. 100261 of 2024 said application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 09.11.2023 subject to certain conditions. Condition No.(3) imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of Crl.Misc.No.5286/2023 reads as follows:-
"3) The petitioners/accused No-1, 3 to 8, 10 shall seek regular bail before the jurisdictional magistrate within 3 weeks from today."
4. Since the petitioners could not apply for regular bail within the time provided in condition No.(3), they had filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge seeking extension of time. The said application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 13.12.2023. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed in -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3336 CRL.P No. 100261 of 2024 Crl.Misc.No.5286/2023. Since the petitioners could not file necessary application seeking regular appeal as directed by the Sessions Court in condition No.(3), the petitioners had filed an application seeking extension of time for filing regular bail application as directed in condition No.(3). The said prayer has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. In my opinion, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the prayer made by petitioners seeking extension of time for filing regular bail application after the learned Sessions Judge on the merits of the case had already granted the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petitioners have assigned satisfactory reasons before the learned Sessions Judge in their application seeking extension of time, for not complying with condition No.(3) imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of Crl.Misc.No.5286/2023. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners seeking extension of time for complying -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:3336 CRL.P No. 100261 of 2024 condition No.(3) imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of Crl.MiscNo.5286/2023. Accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is a allowed.
(ii) Time granted to file regular bail application by the Court of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi, in Condition No.(3) while allowing the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.5286/2023 vide order dated 09.11.2023 is extended by a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27