Mahesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2018

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mahesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 January, 2018

Bench: R.B Budihal

                             1



  THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.32/2018


BETWEEN:


Mahesh,
S/o. Lakshminarayanareddy,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at. No.13, Chinnappanahalli,
Doddanahundi Post,
Bengalore -560 037.                           ...Petitioner

(By Sri. Kemparaju, Advocate)


AND:


The State of Karnataka
By Malavalli town Police Station.          ...Respondent

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Cr.No.16/2006 (C.C. No.53/2016) of
Malavalli Town P.S., Mandya District for the offence
P/U/S 417, 420 read with 34 of IPC.
                                2



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

                           ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 417, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered by the respondent Police in crime No. 16/2006.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused-3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.

3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition.

4. The crime is of the year 2006 and in the FIR itself the name of the petitioner herein is shown as 3 accused No.3. Charge sheet came to be filed in the year 2016. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein has absconded and not available for the Investigating Officer for interrogation during the entire period of investigation. Therefore he is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail.

5. Looking to the conduct of the petitioner herein even after filing charge sheet in the year 2016 and now we are in 2018 even then he was not available to the police for investigation. NBW has been issued, invoking Section 82 and 83 of CRPC proclamation came to be issued. Therefore, in view of these materials the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that he was not known about the crime, registering of crime and FIR which came to be filed against him is not acceptable. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.

6. At this stage learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to surrender before the concerned court. If he surrenders, he can make an application under Section 439 of CRPC to the concerned court. The concerned court to consider his application on priority basis and dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law, if possible on the same day.

Sd/-

JUDGE BVK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court