Karnataka High Court
Sri. Aslam Khan vs State Of Karnataka By on 30 September, 2014
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5801 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SRI ASLAM KHAN
S/O PYARAJAN
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.3, 6TH CROSS,
BHARATH MATHA LAYOUT,
VENKATESHPURAM,
K.G.HALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 045.
(NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMACHANDRA M.B., ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
J.C.NAGAR P.S., BANGALORE
(REPRESENTED BY
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.R.KESHAVA MURTHY, ADDL. SPP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.135/2008 OF J.C.NAGAR P.S.,
BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 144,
147, 148, 427, 333, 295, 341 R/W 149 OF IPC.
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The fact is:
A split up charge sheet was filed against this petitioner by the I.O. in respect of Crime No.0135/2008 of J.C.Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 427, 333, 295, 341 r/w. 149 of IPC. The main case has ended up in acquittal of the accused persons.
2. Sri Ramachandra M.B., learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware of the pendency of the criminal proceedings against him and he was very much residing in the cause title address and he is working in a mutton stall for his livelihood. After coming to know about the split up charge sheet registered against him, he voluntarily surrendered before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. He further submits, in respect of another accused of the -3- same crime number, against whom also a split up charge sheet was filed, he was arrested by the police in consequence of non-bailable warrant issued by the Court. Surprisingly, he has been enlarged on bail by the very same Court, whereas without any valid reason, this petitioner is rejected relief under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
3. Sri K.R.Keshava Murthy, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State submits that knowing fully well about the proceedings, this petitioner voluntarily avoided process of court and only on coming to know that the main case has ended in acquittal and being confident of acquittal, now he has surrendered before the Court. Hence, he is not entitled for bail. Otherwise, he will abscond and cause hindrance to the smooth and speedy progress of the trial. -4-
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no impediment to enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to the following conditions:
a. The petition is allowed.
b. Petitioner is enlarged on bail on executing a self-bond for Rs.1,00,000/- along with one surety for the likesum.
c. It is made clear that the surety shall produce an endorsement from the concerned Revenue authorities stating no encumbrance on the property under his ownership.
d. He shall appear before the Court regularly and punctually and shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj