Karnataka High Court
Chidozie Ani @ Samual @ Prince vs State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 956
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7852 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
Chidozie Ani @ Samual @ Prince
S/o Chika Ani,
Aged about 26 years
Nigerian National, R/at C/o.No.8
Dr.Chikku Road, Munirajappa Layout
Kothanur, Bangalore-560 077.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Vishwanath K S for
Sri Gangadharappa C C, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Kothanur Police Station
Bangalore-560 077
(Represented by learned
State Public Prosecutor). ... Respondent
(By Sri I S Pramod Chandra, SPP-II)
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.PC praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.26/2014 (S.C.No.684/2014) of Kothannur P.S,
Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 376
of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for orders this day,
the court made the following:
2
ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.26/2014 (SC No.684/2014 registered by the Kothannur Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 376 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short)
2. The case of the prosecution is that the criminal case was registered by the respondent at 14.30 hours on 1.3.2014 in Crime No.26/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 376 of IPC.
3. It is stated in the complaint lodged by the victim that she is studying in 1st year B.Com., wherein it is stated that the accused passed on message to her on facebook from past seven days and forcibly came to meet her near hostel at 4 0' clock the said day and forced her into auto with driver and took her to his room to Kothannur. She screamed all the way but no one helped her and finally he took her to his house and threatened 3 her that he would order his dog to kill her and threat her life and raped. Thereafter case came to be chargesheeted for the said offences and was committed to Sessions Court. The case was numbered as SC No.684/2014 for the said offences.
4. The petitioner in the capacity of accused was enlarged on bail earlier by the Court. But, again started remaining absent from 7.11.2014 to 10.11.2017 (the date of appearance is wrongly typed as 10.11.2014). On 10.11.2014, non-bailable warrant was issued and also notice was issued to the police. Thus, for a period of three years, the accused remained absent and was arrested on 13.7.2017 and since then he is in judicial custody.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking bail on 27th September, 2017. Thereafter, he moved the petition before this Court in Crl.P No.8151/2017. The 4 petition came to be rejected with observations that this Court issued direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
6. Insofar as the trial is concerned, after framing charge, no further progress is made. In this connection, a direction was issued by this Court and trial had not commenced, but it did not happen.
7. Learned SPP-II opposed the application and submitted that the petitioner has no regards for Court proceedings and he was once under the benefit of bail and was arrested because of default. His absence has been chronic for three years.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after expiry of prescribed period of six months, extended period of three months was also completed. It has been for a period of three months earlier the said extended period as completed. In the circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have focused for 5 disposal of the case as well. In the circumstances, I do not find any injustice caused to the ends of justice, if the petition is allowed. The Trial Court is reminded that the matter be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
9. Hence, the criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused is enlarged on bail in Cr.No.26/2014 registered by Kothannur Police Station, Bengaluru, subject to the following conditions;
i) The petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with a solvent surety owning and possessing immovable properties for the likesum.
ii) The petitioner-accused shall not terrorize the witnesses nor tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner.
iii) The petitioner-accused shall not leave the territory of the trial Court without prior permission till the completion of the trial.
iv) The petitioner-accused shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer of the 6 above case on every Sunday at 10.00 a.m. before the jurisdictional police until further orders.
v) The petitioner hereafter shall be regular in appearance before the trial Court.
10. It is made clear that in case of a single absence, he land in forfeiture of benefit granted under the order. The petitioner will be taken for further custody.
11. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Nigerian National. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishwanath, would submit that the passport of the petitioner has been surrendered to the Court.
12. It is made further clear that if passport is not already surrendered, it shall be surrendered before the release of the petitioner.
13. In the circumstance, the petitioner shall mark his presence on every Sunday at 10.00 a.m. before the jurisdictional police to ensure that he is present and 7 if he leaves Bengaluru City jurisdiction, he shall inform about the place where he is going along with the purpose, in case of violation of any of these conditions.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkm.