Karnataka High Court
Konapalle Janardhan Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 March, 2013
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.2100 OF 2013
Between:
Konapalle Janardhan Reddy
aged 38 years
Occ: Proprietor of B.S. Logistic
R/o Rajeev Nagar
Taluk: Hospet
District: Bellary
...Revision Petitioner
(by Shri V.M. Sheelvant, Advocate)
And:
The State of Karnataka
P.S.I. Cowl Bazar Police Station
represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Circuit Bench, Dharwad
...Respondent
(by Shri K.S. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397
read with 439(1)(b) of CrPC seeking to alow the petition by
relaxing bail condition No.4 imposed in Crl.Misc Petition
No.10/2012 by the District & Sessions Judge by order dated
10.1.2012 at the time of granting anticipatory bail in Cowl Bazar
Police Station Crime No.353/2011 pending on the file of the II
Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bellary; and etc.
2
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission,
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
For an offence punishable under Section 406, 417, 420, 426, 468, 469, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, a case was registered in PC No.168 of 2011 by Cowl Bazaar Police Station, Bellary. The case was handed over to the Investigating Officer and after the investigation is over, a case in crime No.353 of 2011 came to be registered. The petitioner, who is the accused in the said case, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.10 of 2012 seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the same was allowed by its order dated 10th January 2012 by putting several conditions, of which, petitioner is seeking relaxation of condition put in Sl.No.4, viz. "the petitioners shall move regular bail application before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within 30 days from the date of this order and shall seek for regular bail."
2. The prayer in this petition is for relaxation of the thirty days' time, since the petitioner could not arrange for surety and 3 comply with other formalities. Prayer is also made for extension of time to file necessary application for regular bail. It is submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court in Crl.R.P. No.2300 of 2012 and other connected matters disposed of on 9th January 2013, granted further thirty days' time to seek for regular bail.
3. The learned counsel for the prosecution submits that it is for this Court to consider for extension of time.
4. The submissions advanced the learned counsel are examined in the light of the order. In this connection, it is useful to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in (2011)1 SCC 694 wherein it is held that grant of anticipatory bail for a limited period is illegal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph No.123 of the judgment, has held thus:
"123. In view of the clear declaration of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case, it would not be proper to limit the life of anticipatory bail. When the court observed that the anticipatory bail is for limited 4 duration and thereafter the accused should apply to the regular court for bail, that means the life of section 438 CrPC would come to an end after that limited duration. This limitation has not been envisaged by the legislature. The Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case clearly observed that it is not necessary to re-write section 438 CrPC. Therefore, in view of the clear declaration of the law by the Constitution Bench, the life of the order under section 438 CrPC granting bail cannot be curtailed."
5. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra, when it has been held that when statute itself does not permit for conditional grant of anticipatory bail, the Courts do not have power to put any conditions by allowing application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prayer made by the petitioner for extension of time is required to be moulded in the interest of justice.
6. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The order of the Trial Court granting anticipatory bail by allowing the application filed 5 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is, till the end of trial in the instant case.
7. With above observation, this Revision Petition stands allowed.
(sd/-) JUDGE lnn/-