Sri Kuswa Adath vs State By R T Nagar Police Station on 14 November, 2017

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Kuswa Adath vs State By R T Nagar Police Station on 14 November, 2017

Bench: R.B Budihal

                                1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
                          BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7585 OF 2017
BETWEEN:

Sri. Kuswa Adath S/o Gopal,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.14, R.T. Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 032.

Native place at
Nowpada within the
Jurisdiction of Singoor PS,
Hugli, West Bengal-873 428.
                                                ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. Prakasha K.V., Advocate)

AND:

State by R.T. Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Represented by Special Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001.
                                               ...RESPONDENT
(By Sri. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

       This criminal petition       is filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.179/2011 of R.T. Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City,
                                  2



for the offence P/U/S 366A, 366B, 372, 373, 344, 506 R/w
34 of IPC.

      This criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:


                          ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 4, 5 and 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Sections 366(A), 366(B), 372, 373, 344, 506 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered in respondent police station Crime No.179/2011.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner- accused No.5 and also learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.5 made a submission that earlier the present 3 petitioner was granted regular bail but subsequently as the mother of accused No.5 was not feeling well, he has not appeared before the Court on the adjourned dates. Therefore non-bailable warrant was issued and again he was taken to custody. Hence, learned counsel submitted that it is because of the bonafide reasons the petitioner-accused No.5 has not appeared before the trial court. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions he may be admitted to regular bail.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP made a submission that the petitioner-accused No.5 has violated the conditions of the bail order, thereafter his bail bond and surety bond were forfeited and a proclamation was issued, even then he has not appeared before the Court. Thereafter, on issuance of non-bailable warrant, he was again taken to custody. 4 Hence, he opposed the petition contending that petitioner is not entitled for bail.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case. So also, perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioner. The materials goes to show that petitioner-accused No.5 remained absent in appearing before the concerned Court. If really his mother was ill, with the help of the Advocate he could have brought the same to the notice of the Court as on the adjourned dates, which was not done in this case. Apart from that, bail bond and surety bond were forfeited, proclamation was also issued, even then he has not chosen to appear before the concerned Court. Thereafter on issuance of non-bailable warrant, again the petitioner-accused No.5 was taken to custody. 5 Looking to the conduct of petitioner-accused No.5, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner-accused No.5.

The petition is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE Bmc

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court