Karnataka High Court
Ramajan S/O Badshah Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 June, 2021
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22 N D DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100123/2021
BETWEEN:
RAMAJAN S/O: BA DSHAH NADAF ,
AGE: 55 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
R/O: HOUS E NO.5,
MADAKI MASTI AREA,
NEAR HONDA SHOWROOM,
TQ & DIST: SOLA PUR.
MAHARASHTRA-413001.
...A PPELLANT
(BY SRI.P.P.HITTA LAMANI, ADVOCAT E)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MUDHOL POLI CE STATION,
NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLI C PROS ECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARW AD-580001.
2. DURGAVVA SATYA PPA PUJARI ,
AGE: 47 YEARS , OCC: HOUS EHOLD WORK,
R/O: BARA GI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALK OT-587313.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R-1
RES PONDENT N O.2 - SERVED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL IS FILED U/S 14(A)( 2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT., PRAYING T O SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.04.2021 IN CASE NO.73/ 2020,
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BA GALKOT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, BY
GRANTING REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN
MUDHOHL P.S . CRIME N O.156/2012 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNIS HABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324,
354, 307, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, S ECTION
3(1)( x)(xi) AND 3(2)( v) OF S C/ST (POA) A CT,
PENDING ON THE FILE II ADD L. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BA GALKOT I N SPECIAL CAS E
NO.73/ 2020.
THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, T HE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.04.2021 passed in Spl.Case.No.73/2020 by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, rejecting the bail application sought by appellant in Crime No.156/2012 of Mudhol Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the present appeal is filed.
3
2. The case has been registered against appellant-accused No.1 and two others in Mudhol P.S., Crime No.156/2012 for offences punishable for the aforesaid offences and it was pending in Spl.Case No.65/2012 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions/Special Judge, Bagalkot. The appellant was granted bail by order dated 31.08.2012 and he has been released on bail after executing bond and furnishing surety on the same day. As the accused No.1, who is appellant herein did not attend the Court on 21.01.2015, NBW came to be issued against him. In the mean time, the case came to be transferred to II Addl. District Judge on 30.10.2015. The notice to surety of accused No.1 was issued and surety appeared and paid the bond amount and he has been discharged from his obligation. NBW issued 4 against the appellant-accused No.1 unexecuted and therefore case against him is ordered to be split-up on 23.11.2016. The split-up charge sheet has been filed on 21.10.2020 and case is registered against the appellant-accused No.1 in Spl.Case No.73/2020. The appellant-accused No.1 came to be produced by executing NBW on 26.03.2021 in Spl.Case No.73/2020 and he has been remanded to judicial custody. The appellant-accused No.1 has filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, by order dated 05.04.2021. The appellant-accused No.1 has challenged the said order in this appeal.
3. Though notice issued to complainant- respondent No.2 has been served on him and he remained unrepresented.
5
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1- State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant met with an accident and he was under treatment and subsequently he was diagnosed with hypertensive heart disease and liver disease and he was taking medical treatment.
Therefore, he could not appear before the Court. He would contend that the
Sessions/Special Judge has not considered all these aspects. He would contend that the appellant is ready to be present on all the dates of hearing and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and grant bail.
6
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contends that appellant remained absent for long eight years and the explanation offered by the appellant is not sufficient. The bail application of the appellant came to be rejected by the Special Judge on the ground that the appellant is resident of Solapur in Maharashtra State and if he is released on bail, he will abscond and it will cause the hindrance in trial of the case. He further contends that the Special Court has rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant and the impugned order does not call for any interference.
7. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned High Court Government 7 Pleader for respondent No.2, this Court has gone through the records.
8. The accused-appellant No.1 was granted bail by order dated 31.08.2012 and he has been released on the same day.
Subsequently, he appeared before the Court for some period and he remained absent and NBW came to be issued against him on 21.01.2015, with notice to surety. The surety of the appellant has paid the bond amount and he has been discharged by order dated 23.11.2016. The case against the appellant- accused No.1 came to be split-up by order dated 23.11.2016. After nearly four years, the split-up charge sheet has been filed and case came to be registered against the appellant on 21.10.2020 in Spl. Case No.73/2021. Since 26.03.2021 he is in judicial custody. The 8 medical reports produced will reveal that the appellant met with an accident and he sustained nasal bone fracture and he was in rest in the year 2016. Subsequently, he was diagnosed with hypertensive heart disease and liver disease and he was taking medical treatment. The appellant-accused No.1 has sufficiently explained reasons for his non appearance before the Court. The Special Judge dismissed the bail application on the ground that the appellant is resident of Solapur, Maharashtra State and it is difficult to secure his presence. Merely, because the appellant is resident of another state is not a ground to reject the bail application. The said view is supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Harjeet Chandok @ Harjeet Singh Chandor and Others Vs. The State of 9 Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.3028/2017 decided on 03.05.2019. Therefore, the approach of the Special Judge in rejecting the bail application is not proper. As the appellant has undertaken to abide by the conditions to be imposed, he is entitled for grant of bail. Hence, the impugned order requires to be set aside. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is allowed. The order dated 05.04.2021 passed in Spl.Case.No.73/2020 by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, is set aside. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The appellants/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in connection 10 with Crime No.156/2012 of Mudhol Police Station with the following conditions:
i. The appellant/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii. The appellant shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.
iii. The appellant shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE RM