Karnataka High Court
Syed Abdul Razak vs The State By Sub on 8 August, 2016
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3279/2016
BETWEEN
SYED ABDUL RAZAK @ BASHA
S/O LATE KAMAL SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/O. TUVVADODDI DEVANAKONDA,
PATTIKONDA TALUK, KURNOOL DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, DIST BALLARI,
REP. BY P P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJARAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.60/2006 (C.C.NO.219/2013) OF GANDHINAGAR P.S.,
BALLARI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 120B, 307, 399, 150 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF
IPC AND SECTION 25 OF ARMS ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.6 in Crime No.60/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 307, 399 and 150 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.
2. Petitioner had obtained bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No.239/2006 by conditional order dated 21.06.2006. Thereafter, petitioner did not appear before the Jurisdictional from 04.07.2006 to 24.08.2008. As such, non-bailable warrant came to be issued against the petitioner. However, before the hearing date, an application for preponement was made and application to recall the non-bailable warrant was filed and accordingly, it was recalled to 24.08.2008. Thereafter, petitioner never appeared before the jurisdictional Court and as such, split up charge sheet came to be filed against other accused persons i.e., accused Nos.3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 who have since absconded. It is because of this precise reason, trial did not commence. The delay in trial, if any, is solely attributable to the present petitioner and other persons who were absconding.
:3:
3. It is the contention of Smt. Sunita P. Kalasoor, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that petitioner was working as a hamal and was staying with his family at Andhra Pradesh and there were no criminal antecedents against petitioner and hence, he be released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for State would oppose grant of bail on the ground that petitioner is a permanent resident of Andhra Pradesh and he has appeared before the Jurisdictional Court and having obtained bail had jumped and never appeared even after the warrant was recalled and as such, he prays for rejection of the petition.
5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of records, it would clearly indicate that petitioner was granted bail on 21.06.2006 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.239/2006. After obtaining bail, he never appeared between the dates i.e., 04.07.2006 to 24.08.2008 and as such, non-bailable warrant came to be issued. Before warrant came to be executed, an application was made on 24.06.2008 and non-bailable warrant issued :4: against petitioner came to be recalled. Thereafter, from 24.06.2008 till 05.01.2016 i.e., till petitioner was arrested, he never appeared before the jurisdictional Court. As such, split up charge sheet came to be filed against other accused. Now the matter is also committed to II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari in S.C. No.20/2016. In view of the fact that petitioner is in jail since seven months, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled for being enlarged on bail and to allay the fear expressed by prosecution, it would be necessary to impose stringent conditions, so the petitioner would not abscond yet again as has been done earlier.
6. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) Criminal Petition is hereby allowed.
b) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one local solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court and subject to following conditions: :5:
i) Petitioner shall appear before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari on all dates of hearing without fail;
ii) Petitioner shall not tamper or terrorize the prosecution witnesses;
iii) Petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdictional Court without express
permission;
iv) Petitioner shall mark his attendance
before Gandhinagar Police Station, Ballari on every alternate day between 09:00 a.m. and 06:00 p.m. till the conclusion of trial.
In the event of any of the conditions imposed by this Court is violated, prosecution would be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh