Karnataka High Court
Jagadisha vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4958/2014
BETWEEN:
Jagadisha,
S/o. Ramesha @ Krishnappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Occ: Coolie,
R/o. Chennakeshava Nagara,
Belur City, Hassan District. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. Prasanna Kumar. P. Daroji, Adv.)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
By Banakal Police Station,
Mudigere,
Chikamaglur District.
Ambedkar Veedhi,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.
2
No.81/2012 of Banakal P.S., Chikmagalur, for the
offences P/U/S 302, 201 and 120B read with Section
34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the alleged offences under Sections 120B, 201, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.81/2012.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that the trial in 3 respect of accused Nos.1 and 3 has been concluded and the learned Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur has acquitted accused Nos.1 and 3 from the case. In the judgment it has been observed by the trial Court that the materials placed by the prosecution are not believable and not satisfactory. Hence, in view of the said judgment and by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.
4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that all along petitioner was absconding and because of that reason split up charge sheet was filed and after coming to know that in respect of other two accused the case ended in acquittal, he again moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail and the same was rejected. It is submitted that looking to the conduct of the petitioner, even if he is released on bail again he will abscond and put hurdles in the trial of the case. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 4
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and all other materials produced in the case.
6. Earlier also petitioner had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.2484/2014 and this Court by order dated 1.7.2014 has rejected the said petition. At that time, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner will surrender before the concerned Court and accordingly, he was permitted and it was also observed by this Court that if he moved the bail application, the same is to be considered on merits preferably on the very same day and to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered before the Court and moved the bail petition and now the same has been rejected by the trial Court.
7. No doubt, at the first instance he remained absent to appear before the concerned Court and that was the reason for filing split up charge sheet in the 5 matter. But, however, subsequent conduct of the petitioner is that he surrendered before the Court and now he is in custody. He has also produced the copy of the judgment rendered in respect of accused Nos.1 and 3 wherein case has ended in acquittal and even with regard to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the concerned Sessions Judge has observed that the said material is not satisfactory nor it is reliable. Now the petitioner has undertaken in the petition that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. Looking to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also, the averments made in the bail petition, the apprehension of the prosecution that again he will abscond and put hurdles in the progress of the trial of the case against him, stringent conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner- accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail of the 6 offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.81/2012, subject to following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
(ii) Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iii) Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp