Karnataka High Court
Sri.Gajendra S/O Gurrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2016
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100070/2016
BETWEEN:
Sri. Gajendra, S/o. Gurrappa
Age: 22 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o. Marutla Village
Sandur Taluk
D. Anathapura (po)
Sandur Tq. Bellary.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri. Vinal S. Koujalagi, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
Represented by S.P.P.
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench
At Dharwad.
...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, HCGP)
----
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF
C.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN C.C.NO.116/2015 PENDING ON THE FILE OF C.J.M.
COURT YALBURGA IN KOPPAL DISTRICT (IN CRIME
NO.105/2009 OF KUKANOOR POLICE STATION) FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge him on bail in connection with CC No.116/2015 pending on the file Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Yalburga in Koppal District.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a FIR was registered in Crime No.105/2009 by the respondent police against certain unknown accused. The police filed spilt up charge sheet on three occasions. The petitioner was not named as accused in the first and second charge sheet and he was named as accused No.6 for the first time in the split up charge sheet filed on third occasion, pursuant to which he was apprehended and produced :3: before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yalburga and remanded to the judicial custody. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Marutala village in Sandur taluk, Bellary District. He submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before concerned Court on all the dates of hearing and he is prepared to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail and he prays for allowing the petition by granting bail to the petitioner.
3. The learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits, as the police could not trace him earlier, the trial had to be split up and it is only after police tracing him, split charge sheet was filed and he was apprehended and remanded to judicial custody. He submits that if he is enlarged on bail he would not appear before the concerned Court and it would be difficult for the Court to proceed with the trial and therefore, he prays for rejection of the petition.
4. The respondent-police registered a FIR in Crime No.105/2009 against seventeen unknown accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Cr.P.C. They filed the first :4: charge sheet against 5 accused persons and submitted the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate. On committal of the case to the jurisdictional Sessions Court, trial was conducted against those five accused persons in SC No.20/11 and the trial was finally ended in acquittal on 23.09.2009. The police, after tracing four more accused, submitted the second charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate and it was registered as C.C.No.26/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yalburga. After further investigation of the matter, the police traced eight more accused persons with regard to the same Crime No.105/2009 and filed third charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate, Yalburga, which is numbered as C.C.No.116/2015 and pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yalburga. The petitioner was arrayed as accused No.6 in the third charge sheet. He was apprehended by the respondent- police and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody and he is in judicial custody. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.397/2015 for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court :5: rejected his bail application on the ground that he is involved in the offence along with other accused. Though accused Nos. 1 to 5 are acquitted in S.C.No.20/2011, the spilt up charge sheet has been filed against the accused No.6/petitioner herein.
5. It is to be seen that the petitioner was not named in the FIR registered as Crime No.105/2009. He was not arrayed as accused in the first and second charge sheet filed by the respondent- police. It was only in the spilt up charge sheet filed at third time, for the first time he was arrayed as accused No.6. After arraying him as accused No.6 in the spilt up charge sheet, he was immediately apprehended and remanded to judicial custody. If that is the case, it cannot be said that he was absconded for six years. It is also to be noted that the trial held against the other five accused was ended in acquittal.
6. It was also observed in para 10 of the order of the Sessions Court that no recovery was made from this accused No.6/petitioner herein. The charge sheet also discloses that no recovery was made from the accused No.6. If that is so, I do not find any reason to :6: deny bail to the petitioner. The apprehension of the State that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would not be available for trial, can be safeguarded by imposing stringent conditions on the petitioner while granting him bail.
7. Hence the following order:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.105/2009 and C.C.No.116/2015, pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Yalburga, Koppal District, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall furnish two solvent sureties for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In addition to that, he shall furnish a cash security for Rs.50,000/-.
ii. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned Court without prior permission of the said Court.:7:
iii. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing.
In the event of the petitioner disobeying any of the above conditions, the State is at liberty to move the Sessions Court for cancellation of the bail granted herein.
Sd/-
JUDGE gab/VMB