Karnataka High Court
Eranna S/O Narasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2020
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRL.P. NO.101338 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
ERANNA S/O NARASAPPA
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURIST,
R/O CHELLAKUDLURU VILLAGE,
TQ:SIRUGUPPA, DIST:BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(HATCHOLLI POLICE STATION, DIST:BALLARI)
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO KINDLY ALLOW
THE PETITION AND TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE
HATCHOLLI POLICE STATION TO ENLARGE THE PRESENT
PETITION WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED No.2 ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR
P.S. CRIME NO.26/2010 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court with a prayer to enlarge him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a case registered by the respondent-Police in Crime No.26/2010, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is pending in split up charge sheet CC No.533/2012 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the materials on record.
3. On a complaint lodged by one Obalapura Shekanna, a case was registered in Crime No.26/2010 at Hatcholli Police Station, Ballari against accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of 3 IPC, in connection with the murder of one Nagappa, brother of the complainant. It is alleged that on 23.07.2010 between 9 p.m. and 11.30 p.m., accused No.1 to 3 committed his murder by assaulting with stones and thereafter threw the dead body into the water from the bridge. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused No.1 and 3, deleting the name of present petitioner (accused No.2). Subsequently, on 6.3.2012 as per the order of the learned Sessions Judge, split up charge sheet in CC No.533/2012 came to be registered against the present petitioner.
4. The materials on record disclose that accused No.1 and 3 were committed to Sessions Court and the said case was numbered as SC No.63/2011 and in the split up charge sheet filed against present petitioner, summons were issued to him which was not served in spite of sufficient 4 time granted. Thereafter, the Court issued NBW. However, NBW was unexecuted due to which the Court issued proclamation order and attachment of the petitioner's property under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc. No.489/2020 before the Sessions Court, which came to be rejected vide order dated 7.10.2020.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that initially the petitioner was dropped from the charge sheet and subsequent registration of case against him was not within his knowledge. The police during the course of investigation have deleted the name of the present petitioner as there was no evidence available against him. Petitioner was away from his native place in search of his livelihood and he came to know about the pendency of case very recently and thereafter, he filed a petition before the Sessions 5 Court seeking anticipatory bail. He submits that the trial was conducted against accused No.1 and 3 and they have been acquitted by the trial Court. Petitioner is willing to abide by conditions which are likely to be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish adequate surety for his enlargement on bail. Accordingly, he has sought to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP contends that since inception of the case, the petitioner has been absconding. After the split up charge sheet was filed, the petitioner has not responded to the summons as well as NBW issued against him. As such, the Court issued proclamation and order of attachment of the petitioner's property under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief he has sought in this petition. Accordingly, he sought to reject the petition.
6
7. It is not in dispute that initially charge sheet was filed against accused No.1 and 3 deleting the name of petitioner. Even though the case was registered against three accused, the petitioner was not arrested by the respondent- Police. Trial was held against accused No.1 and 3 in SC No.63/2011 which came to be ended in their acquittal vide judgment dated 13.9.2012. Fact remains that in spite of issuance of NBW, the respondent/Police were not able to arrest the accused/petitioner herein. As noted earlier, when the charge sheet was filed, the name of the petitioner was dropped and charge sheet was filed against accused No.1 and 3 who are already acquitted by the trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to grant the relief sought by the petitioner by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following:
7
ORDER
a) Petition is allowed.
b) Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.26/2010 of Hatcholli Police Station, now pending in CC No.533/2012 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
iii) Petitioner shall appear before the Committal Court/trial Court on all dates of hearing.
iv) Petitioner shall furnish proof of his correct address and shall inform the Court if there is any change in address.8
v) Petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities.
Sd/-
JUDGE JTR