Karnataka High Court
Smt Charusmitha P N vs State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7393/2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. CHARUSMITHA P.N.,
W/O SANDEEP GURURAJ,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.B-04, V.K. RESIDENCY,
DR. SHIVRAMKARANTH ROAD,
CHIKKALSANDRA,
BENGALURU 560 061. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GAUTAM SHREEDHAR BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
REGISTERED BY VIDHANA SOUDHA P.S.
TRANSFERRED TO CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION,
REP BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP,
SRI S.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT/APPLICANT)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439(1)(b) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO MODIFY/ALTER/RELAX THE
CONDITION NOS.2 AND 5 PASSED IN THE ORDER DATED
30.07.2021 BY THE LEARNED IV A.C.M.M., IN C.C.NO.8330/2021
(ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.14/2020) AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER
TO TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS OF THE TRIAL
COURT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to modify/alter/relax condition No.2 i.e., accused No.2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission and condition No.5 i.e., accused No.2 shall mark her attendance before the jurisdictional police on every first day of every two months till completion of the trial of the order dated 30.07.2021 passed in C.C.No.8330/2021.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner had made an application before the Trial Court to travel to Tamil Nadu, wherein her parents are staying and the same has been rejected by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the relief of modification of bail condition. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner for the 3 purpose of investigation travelled to Bengaluru by leaving her son, who is aged about six years with her aged mother in Trichy, Tamil Nadu and she is the primary care giver. The petitioner's mother has suffered from Covid-19 and is recovering and not able to look after the child. Hence, the petitioner needs the flexibility to travel in order to take care of her son and to attend to her medical needs. Apart from that, the learned counsel would submit that accused No.1 is permitted to travel within India, but this petitioner's right is curtailed by imposing condition No.2 and this petitioner has also filed an affidavit before the Trial Court furnishing Tamil Nadu residential address as well as e-mail address and there is no question of absconding, but the Magistrate refused to grant permission to travel. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is having permanent abode at Bengaluru and to substantiate the said contention, placed the documents before the Court for having purchased the property in Bengaluru i.e., sale deed, tax paid receipt, electricity bill and gas receipt and the question of absconding does not arise.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the Trial Court rejected the order only on the ground that there 4 are chances of absconding and it is not in dispute that already the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge- sheet and yet to commence the trial.
5. The petitioner is a practicing advocate at Bengaluru having permanent abode and to substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced the sale deed as well as tax paid receipt, electricity bill, gas registration card and also has produced the Bar Council enrollment card. When such being the factual aspects of the case, taking note of the offences alleged against the petitioner, it is appropriate to modify the conditions imposed by the Court i.e., condition No.2, the petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission and condition No.5 that the petitioner shall mark her attendance before the jurisdictional police on every first day of every two months till completion of the trial. In view of the pandemic Covid-19, it is very difficult to conclude the trial and having taken note of the changed circumstances and when the investigation has been completed and when the petitioner is having permanent abode at Bengaluru and when the petitioner is 5 also a practicing advocate, it is appropriate to relax conditions Nos.2 and 5.
6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Condition Nos.2 and 5 of the order dated 30.07.2021 passed in C.C.No.8330/2021 are relaxed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD