Ranganath S/O Balappa Bhajantri vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2017

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ranganath S/O Balappa Bhajantri vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2017

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

                                  1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

               Dated this the 2nd Day of March 2017

                                BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

                Criminal Petition No. 100208/2017
Between:

Ranganath s/o Balappa Bhajantri,
Age: 51 years, Occ.: Contractor,
R/o Vaithav Nagar, Belgavi, now
Residing at Balavatti, Tq: Bilagi,
District: Bagalkot.
                                                    -    Petitioner
(By Sri T.R. Patil, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka,
Hanumasagar P.S. represented by
SPP High Court of Karnataka,
Bench Dharwad.
                                                -       Respondent
(by Sri Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under 438 of Cr.P.C.,
seeking to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in C.C. No.
315/2004 of JMFC Court, Kushtagi, for the offences punishable
u/S 420 and 511 of IPC & etc.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
                                  2




                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader. Perused the records. The accused- petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.50/2001 later charge sheeted along with other accused persons in C.C. No. 244/2001.

2. The records disclose that during the pendency of the crime and after registration of C.C. No.244/2001, the accused appeared before the Court on some hearing dates. After filing of the charge sheet also his counsel filed exemption applications before the Court but he personally remained absent and Non-Bailable Warrants were issued against this petitioner and ultimately his case was split up from the case and other accused Nos.3 and 4 were tried by the Court in C.C. No. 244/2001 on the file of JMFC, Kustagi dated 27.07.2014.

3. The split up charge sheet has been filed against this particular person and the accused No.1 in C.C. No. 3 315/2004. In that particular case the Court has issued warrants to secure the presence of this petitioner and another accused. In that context, the petitioner is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

4. The records disclose that the accused was having knowledge of the proceedings before the trial Court but he remained without any explanation. However, he got filed exemption applications before the Court by instructing his counsel and subsequently he did not do so but he remained absconding. It clearly indicates that he has no respect to the Court proceedings. Even though he was having knowledge of the proceedings but when other accused were acquitted, taking advantage of the same, he approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail and the same came to be rightly rejected and hence he is before this Court.

5. The conduct of the accused-petitioner goes to show that throughout he had knowledge of the proceedings before the Court. Therefore, it is his bounden duty to make 4 arrangement for his appearance before the Court but there is no explanation for the same.

Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE bvv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court