Karnataka High Court
Parashuram @ Chewayya vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 2 August, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200922/2022
BETWEEN:
PARASHURAM @ CHEWAYYA S/O KHEMU RATHOD
AGE: 33 YEARS OCC: COOLIE WORK
ALIYABAD TANDA
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SHRI. SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
01. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 107.
(THROUGH VIJAYAPURA RURAL P.S.
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 101.)
02. RAMU S/O BHOJU CHAWAN
AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: COOLIE
R/O: ALIYABAD TANDA-2
TQ & DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
GUARDIAN OF VICTIM
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
(1) (B) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
MODIFY/SET-ASIDE THE CONDITION AND FURTHER EXTEND THE
TIME RELATING TO COMPLIANCE OF CONDITION-1 IN ORDER
PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1133/2019 BY THE II ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE AT VIJAYAPURA WITH REGARD, PETITIONER SHALL MARK
IS APPEAR BEFORE CONCERNED RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE
STATION ON EXECUTING THE PERSONAL BOND FOR SUM OF
RS.2,00,000/- WITH TWO LOCAL SOLVENT SURETY WITH
SOLVENCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY,
WITHIN 10 DAYS FROM THE DATE ORDER THEREAFTER SHALL
MOVE REGULAR BAIL BEFORE CONCERNED JURISDICTION
COURT WOULD WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE
ORDER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 376
(D), 342 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF INDIAN PENAL
CODE AND SECTIONS 5 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT, 2012.
THIS PETITION COMNG ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeking to modify the condition and extend the time relating to compliance of condition No.1 in the order passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, at Vijayapura ('Trial Court' for short) in Crl.Misc.No.1133/2019. 3
02. It is seen that FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (D), 342 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. In Crl.Misc.No.1133/2019 the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on some conditions. The learned Trial Court has granted bail subject to condition that the accused persons shall execute the personal-bonds for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two local solvent sureties with solvency for like-sum, to the satisfaction of the concerned police and shall appear before the concerned respondent - police within 10 days from the date of order and shall move for regular-bail before the concerned jurisdictional Court within 30 days from the date of the order. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the petition in Crl.Misc.No.793/2022 under Section 439 (1) of the Cr.P.C. for relaxation of the condition No.1, which was rejected by the Trial Court on 11.07.2022. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition. 4
03. Heard Sri. Sanganabasava B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Gururaj V. Hasilkar, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
- State.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the order for insisting the petitioner to furnish two local sureties with solvency certificates issued by the revenue authority is highly illegal and unreasonable. The learned Sessions Judge has committed grave error in insisting to furnish sureties with solvency certificates. It is further submitted that the petitioner still languishing in the Jail. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.
05. Against this, learned High Court Government Pleader argued that the petitioner is absconding and split up charge sheet has been filed. Warrant is also issued against the petitioner and he has not appeared before the Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 5
06. I have perused the material produced before the Court. The alleged offences are heinous in nature and there was offence under the provisions of POCSO Act. It is stated by the learned High Court Government Pleader that though the petitioner left out from the charge sheet, but subsequently, prosecution has filed application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to add this petitioner and he has been added, but the petitioner is still absconding.
07. The further order and condition No.1 of the Trial Court reads as under:-
"It is hereby further ordered that, the instant-petitioners No.1 to 4/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall be enlarged on bail in the year event of their arrest by the respondent- police, on executing the personal-bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two local solvent sureties with solvency certificates issued by the revenue authorities for like- sum, to the satisfaction of the concerned police, subject to the following;6
CONDITIONS
01. The instant-petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 5 shall appear before the concerned respondent-police within 10 days from the date of this order and thereafter shall move for regular-bail before the concerned jurisdictional court within 30 days from the date of this order."
08. It is seen from the condition No.1 that though the petitioner is directed to move for regular-bail before the concerned jurisdictional Court within 30 days from the date of the order, but more than three years the petitioner is neither appeared before the Investigating Officer nor before the jurisdictional Court. It is stated that the petitioner is absconding and warrant is also issued against him. The split up charge sheet is filed. Hence, the Court cannot show mercy to the petitioner in view of his conduct. On the other hand, it is pleaded in the petition that the petitioner is in Jail. But actually he is absconding. The petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KJJ