Karnataka High Court
Vadde Shekar @ Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10 t h DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100906/2020
BETWEEN:
VADDE SHEKAR @ SURESH
AGE: 25 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: KONDA PALLI VILLAGE,
KANAGALA, MANDALAM,
ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT-301709.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B.C. JNA NAYYA SWAMI, AD VOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH MOKA POLI CE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRI CT),
REPRES ENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BEN CH.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA S HIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THI S PETITION AND
ENLARGE THE PET ITIONER / ACCUS ED NO.3 ON BAIL
IN S.C. NO.36/2016 ( CRIME NO.26/ 2010 REGISTERED
BEFORE MOKA P.S .) PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI FOR THE
OFFENCES U/SEC.364A OF I PC AN D SECTION 25 OF
ARMS ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.3 under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.26/2010 of Moka Police Station, registered for an offence punishable under Sections 364A of The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (SC No.36/2016 pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant by name one Smt. Mangala Gowari wife of Mallikarjun filed a complaint alleging that her grandfather is residing in a separate house, so her husband used to go to that house to take care of her grandfather at night hours. On 16.05.2010, as usual, 3 her husband went to that house. On the next day morning her husband was not there. She and her brother, brother of her husband tried to search but he was not traced out. She further alleged that the kidnapers made a phone call to the brother of her husband that if they pay Rs.1 crore, then her husband would be released. Further she lodged a missing complaint. After registration of the case, the police took up investigation and filed charge sheet on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge, Ballari. The said case has been committed to the Sessions Court and registered as S.C. No.126/2013. Accused No.3, who is the present petitioner, remained absent and the case against him came to be split up. The said split up case is numbered as SC No.36/2016. The petitioner was not secured. As such, the said case was treated as LPR. The police arrested the petitioner on 10.01.2020 and produced before the Court. The petitioner approached learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari and filed 4 bail application in S.C. No.36/2016 and it came to be rejected by order dated 17.07.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who was arrayed as accused No.3 in SC No.126/2013 has been granted bail by order dated 06.08.2014 and he has been released on 07.08.2014. It is his further submission that as the petitioner/accused No.3 went to Bangalore to eke out his livelihood, he was not able to attend the said case and the said case against him came to be split up and registered as SC No.36/2016. It is his further submission that the petitioner came to be arrested on 10.01.2020 and he is in judicial custody since then. It is his further submission that the original case in SC 5 No.126/2013 proceeded against accused Nos.1 and 2 and they are acquitted by judgment dated 06.10.2017. It is his further submission that the petitioner is now ready to face trail and he will attend the court regularly and with stringent conditions, the petitioner may be released on bail. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner/accused No.3 remained absent in SC No.126/2013 and the case against him was split up and even he did not attend the split up case also. The petitioner was not secured even on issuance of repeated warrants against him. Therefore, the case came to be treated as LPR. It is her further submission that the petitioner is the resident of Andhra Pradesh and if he is released on bail, he will flee from justice and will not be available for trial and again there will be delay in disposal of the case registered 6 against him. With this, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records and the order sheet in S.C. No.126/2013.
7. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.3 in S.C. No.126/2013. In the said case, accused No.3 was in judicial custody till 07.08.2014. The petitioner/accused No.3 was granted bail by order dated 06.08.2014 and was released on 07.08.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner did not attend the said case and the said case against him came to be split up by order dated 22.03.2016. Thereafter, the split up charge sheet was registered against the petitioner in SC No.36/2016. The petitioner did not appear in the said case in spite of issuance of warrants. The police 7 secured the petitioner on 10.01.2020 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The reason assigned for the absence of the petitioner is that he went to Bangalore to eke out his livelihood and therefore there was communication gap between the counsel and himself and therefore he was not able to attend the said case. The case against accused Nos.1 and 2 in SC No.126/2013 was ended in acquittal by judgment dated 06.10.2017. The petitioner was earlier granted bail on 06.08.2014. Therefore, accepting the reasons assigned by the petitioner, he is entitled for grant of bail subject to stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
8
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.3 shall be released on bail in Crime No.26/2010 of Moka Police Station (SC No.36/2016 pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari) subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees two lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall attend the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv