Kirankumar Vasant Malsekar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2009

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Kirankumar Vasant Malsekar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2009

Bench: L.Narayana Swamy

IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKIAD'   V'
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD   '

DATED THIS THE 15th DAY  _ 3  "
BEFOREI:   u J'   'N
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE  3
CRIMINAL PETIT1c§I§I=N:c:.fIf91}é;i:2'_t)o§9 

BETWEEN:   'A   _ 
1. KIRANKUMAR VASANT   IV  

AGE: 37 YEAr<S_ .  
OCC:PRIVA.'I'E~.SERV1CE   

R/O I3INA.GA,  85 DIST; I<..ARifwAR ""
   ,      PETITIONER
(By Sri. S S%'_YA'D.VR.AI\.xIIV_, ADv)_"-- "  

AND:
1. STATE GT, KARNATAKA

BY' KARWAR RURAL. POLICE, KARWAR
 THE ST}'.TP3«'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

.  _TI~I.E'IHAIGVH,c0URT OF' KARNATAKA

'  'CIRG.UIT]BEI\;CH, DHARWAD
  '  ...RESPoNDENT
(By*Sri;TP. H.«(3fOfZ'KI-IINDI, HCGP)

éRL:'P IS EILED U/8.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE

«LWFOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS I-ION*BLE COURT
- 4' MAY 'BE PLEASED To ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
 " KAR_'Vv'--AR RURAL P.S.cRIME No. 63/2009 FOR THE ALLEGED
 _'oFE,ENcE U/S 376 OF' IPC BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL

PETITION.

"\



{J

THIS PETITON COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner preferred this petition seeking'enlargemei*iti * on bail in Crime No.63/2009 on the fileHopf'Kar_war"Pb'iice"forVthe ll offences punishable under Section of:'I'PC. ii

2. It is submitted by tl1e,r"learned...Counsel Tor the petitioner that the petition filed""b;t_:"theaaccuseid before the Court below came to be rejected 'onl*t;E'1e _grofu.nd*.that' in order to grant regular 'bail, should be in judicial custody." In the earlier filed Crl. Misc. No.13}/2009 which carnelliitoiibeVidi_sposed'i of on 22.05.2009, wherein the ..--'Vpetitio"n5er gran'ted.....be'neﬁt of anticipatory bail and further The was_directedii'to_ move for regular bail. The petitioner was arrested' police and later on in View of the anticipatory bail granted the Court, he was released. Further, after the release, the petitioner moved an application for regular bail wwfhiiehiicame to be rejected on the ground that the petitioner

--«i_4was"inot in judicial custody. The iearned Counsel further \ Ly.) submits that the person who is on anticipatory bail to be in judicial custody in View of the judgemer;-'.t:'rendge'red the Hor1'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2.008..SC thejcaise it of State of Haryana 65 Ors. Vs. Dinesh attention to para 25 of the judgment "In a;é',._1a%._f:er..sét of cases, in order to obtain} the bail "axiV_Aae_c;§used has to surrender to the or the police authorities before her... the beneﬁt thereunder." the reasons for dismissal of tlie for regular bail is not proper.

3. Thei'learnedgC}oViti.'~.-i5leader opposed the submissions .--».ranade_~ the_pet1tibn.«::r%s.ecounsei and submitted that though Aiﬁtheipetitio:r1ervvifas__ granted anticipatory bail, that is of no help 'ajnticgipatory bail granted not pertains to any V _partiou'larV'-.Voi'fence. Further it is submitted that though the "i.v.ll'a.ntic?.patoVry. bail was granted, he did not move for regular bail in 'terms of the conditions of anticipatory bail. He relies on the judgment reported In 2004 SCC (Cri) 1989 (in the case of Nirmal Jeet Kaur vs. State of M.P. and Another), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the petitioner'"failed;_to move for regular bail within the time granted bythe respect of the same crime, he will not b,e_eligiblelit'o--ise.el§"regtiitaru V' bail. Hence he submitted to dismiss'~this"petition."~

2. I have heard the argurnents rriarie by iiziovthiﬂthepartiesVll and gone through the records.

3. Earlier the petitioner lilasilapp_:oacheic£_'_the District and Sessions Judge, _L.I4.i§.,'---.Ka:i5waf .lc"ri'.":~.4iee."iV'e.131/2009. The same cazhe to; that in case they are arrested any be filed by Maya Madhukar Naik in Karwar4_RiL1ral"Po'iice Vstsation within three months, against the petitioners No.1 for commission of offence of rape, dowry cruelty from the date of this order, the petitioners No.'l._t'o'__3.i beVv'vr'eleased on bail on their executing bonds of liiii'1_s.l,O0i",'«0O0_/4 each with 2 sureties for the likesum. I have gone the---ord.er and it is seen that the Court understood the 4Case..Vof».the petitioner and granted the relief by saying that if any case is fiied by Maya Madhukar Naik, the this case in respect of either commission of 'rape.:'e.tuC.,'i the V' petitioner has to be granted anticipa'toI:y« baiil and*ffurth~e'r was permitted to move for regular i5ail:t--x_tzithin"th1"ee The petitioner has rightly filed._ran appiieatiQr1.:\iv§;th'ir1sjthreei' months in Crl. Misc. No.2i8/2QO9;V:A.ift'hiieh. carneto disposed of on 20.08.2009. The 15-aa1ed~ Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada,4_}&{*arwar"at" judgment has held that in 439 Cr.P.C, the custody. When the same Court .i§ifi§1--;v..Vted"theyantieipatory bail permitting the petitioneriitopj bail within three months, naturally the perseon who is arrested has been released on bail terms the__Court order. During the currency of the said i2&\}'it.h:ivnviVthe-stipulated period of three months, rightly the i petiti'o.nerv_ in the Court for regular bail. The meaning of R""«.__Va'nticipaterj bail is that the person who is arrested still is in ij'v._d'lc.iaAi.«' custody with certain conditions. In View of the eijndgment rendered by the Supreme Court reported in 2004 °< sec (Cri) 1989 (supra) "in order to obtain the benef"i~t_il2«.fi_il3.ail, the accused has to surrender to the Court". In the the petitioner was arrested and he yyas releas'edKon=. bail ./in "

terms of the order passed by the Distric_L.gag}1di'=Sessi'on'sidudge, Karwar and in the currency of-..three2trnonthsfhehas_agai11piV approached for regular bail.ii"'1n_VV View above circumstances, and also referred, this Court feels that the application for regular bail when in terms of the judgment paissedﬂ the Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karxit/at.'--~..Unde:_T"th_e3e-i circumstances, I pass the following order:

ORDER V ..'Fhe__peti'tion._is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail un'dier'lSectio.rt--:43§l Cr.P.C subject to following conditions: uu1}z'l'he.i4petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of A' lés.25,000/-- with one surety for the iikesum to the satisfaction of the committal Court.

i gab

2) The petitioner shall make himself investigating agency as and when 'A V

3) The petitioner shall not leatfeiuthe' of the court without prior 1 ii 3 A i

4) The petitioner shall ino'ti:.:intimi.dé1te teiinper with prosecution mavterietl or it it

5) The petitioner before jurisdieti4o:na.l_ until further i _ it .

Sd/-'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court