Benakesha vs State Of Karnataka

S Vishwajith Shetty, J

Accused No.4 in S.C.No.118/2016 pending before the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, arising out of Crime No.135/2015 registered by the N.R.Pura Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 109 and 397 of IPC, is before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

FIR in Crime No.135/2015 was registered by the N.R.Pura Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District, initially for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC against unknown persons.

Investigation in the case is completed and charge sheet was filed totally against six accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 109 and 397 of IPC. In the charge sheet petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. He was earlier granted regular bail in the case. However, subsequently, it appears that after the case was committed to the Court of the jurisdictional Sessions Judge, the petitioner had absented himself on several dates. Therefore, the Trial Court had secured the presence of the petitioner by issuing non-bailable warrant against him and he was produced before the Trial Court on 12.06.2023 and remanded to judicial custody. His bail application filed before the Trial Court thereafter in S.C.No.118/2016 was dismissed on 26.06.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was earlier granted regular bail in the matter and only since he had absented himself on several dates of hearing before the Trial Court, his presence was secured by issuing non-bailable warrant. Thereafter, he has been remanded to judicial custody. He submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and accordingly, prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned HCGP seriously opposes the bail application. She submits that on several dates of hearing the petitioner absented himself before the Trial Court and inspite of Trial Court recalling the non-bailable warrants issued against him on several dates, the petitioner continued to absent himself.

It is not in dispute that petitioner was earlier granted regular bail in this case. Thereafter, the petitioner was appearing before the Trial Court after the case was committed to the Court of the jurisdictional Sessions Judge. A reading of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge would go to show that on several dates of hearing, petitioner had absented himself and thereafter, non-bailable warrants were issued. The said order also would go to show that on subsequent dates of hearing, petitioner had appeared before the Trial Court and at his instance, non-bailable warrants issued against him were recalled. Since petitioner remained absent before the Trial Court from 09.02.2023 onwards, once again non-bailable warrant was issued against him and his presence was secured on 12.06.2023. Since the petitioner was in a habit of repeatedly remaining absent before the Trial Court, his bail application has been dismissed by the Trial Court. For the mistake committed by the petitioner by remaining absent before the Trial Court, he has been sufficiently punished. He is now in judicial custody from 12.06.2023 onwards. The fact remains that earlier he was granted regular bail on merits of the case. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that prayer made for grant of regular bail is required to be answered in the affirmative.

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No.118/2016 pending before the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, arising out of Crime No.135/2015 registered by the N.R.Pura Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 109 and 397 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.