Karnataka High Court
Munikumar vs State Of Karnataka on 18 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.7687/2021
BETWEEN
MUNIKUMAR S/O SRIRAMALU,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT DASARI BANJIGA,
O.G. KUPPAM VILLAGE, CHITOOR,
ANDRA PRADESH - 517 643.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR,
HOSADURGA POLICE STATION,
HOSADURGA - 577 525,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING THIS
COURT TO ENLARGE ON BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN
CRIME NO.146/2013 REGISTERED BY THE HOSADURGA
POLICE, FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395
OF IPC, SESSIONS CASE PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AT
CHITRAGURGA IN S.C.NO.49/2021 AND RELEASE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
2
THIS PETIT ION COMING ON FOR ORDER S
THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT
DHARWAD COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
: ORDER :
The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.146/2013 of Hosadurga Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Sri. C. Dasappa.
2. Heard learned Counsel Shri. J. Prakash for the petitioner and Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Shankar for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2, who had approached this Court by filling Criminal Petition No.3722/2021 and the said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2021. Initially, the petitioner was released on bail vide order dated 20.01.2014. However, he could not appear before the trial Court due to personal reasons. Thereafter, he was apprehended and produced before the trial Court on 20.12.2020. Since then, he is in 3 judicial custody. The petitioner is suffering from piles and he is under medical treatment. Further the petitioner is also suffering due to HIP replacement and other related medical issues. The petitioner undertakes to attend before the concerned police authority and the Court as and when required. The petitioner undertakes to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned HCGP opposing the petition submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. The petition filed by the petitioner was already considered by this Court and it was dismissed by order dated 29.07.2021. There are no changed circumstances to seek enlargement of petitioner on bail. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner had undergone surgery of piles, could not be a ground for grant of bail. He further submits that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for being committed the offences. Earlier he was enlarged on bail on 20.01.2014. But since April 2014 he never appeared before the trial Court. The case is still at 4 the stage of hearing before charge. Under such circumstances petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence he prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. Perused the materials on record. The point that would arise for consideration of this Court is as follows:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of bail under Section 439 of Crl.P.C.?"
6. My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following:
: REASONS :
7. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by filling Criminal Petition No.3722/2021. The said petition came to be dismissed by order dated 29.07.2021, by considering the contentions of the petitioner in the light of the contention that the sessions case is pending before the trial court since from the year 2013 in SC No.98/2013.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner had undergone surgery while he was in custody, but no documents are produced before 5 this court. Since the petitioner had undergone Piles surgery and he is suffering due to HIP replacement and other related medical issues cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. When there are no supporting documents to form an opinion that the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail on medical grounds. There are no changed circumstances to seek enlargement of the petitioner on bail. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence I answer the above petitioner in the "Negative" and proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSP/-