E.A. Govinda vs The State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 622/2012 on the file of the JMFC, Virajpet, registered for the offences under Sections 104-A, 144, 71(a) of K.F. Act, 1963 and Sections 127A, 165 of K.F. Rules r/w. 379 of IPC, is before this Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail. The respondent/police on 8.1.2008 initially had registered a case in Crime No. 3/2008 against the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA-12-6741 and others and had taken up investigation.

It is alleged that when the complainant/police officer along with his staff were on beat and were on the road leading from Gonikoppal to Virajpet near the Masjid at Mogaragalli, they noticed a lorry bearing No. KA-12-6741 loaded with 15 billets of rosewood coming to the said place. On stopping the lorry, the inmates of the lorry including the driver took to their heels. Thereafter, the police officer took steps to seize the lorry and rosewood that was being transported in the said lorry without valid pass and permit for the same in the presence of the panchas. According to the police officer, the value of the rosewood that was being transported in the lorry was Rs. 3 lakh. On the basis of the complaint filed by the police officer a case was registered and investigation was taken up. The said police on completion of the investigation submitted final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate against one A.N. Azeez @ Abdul Azeez (A1) and showing this petitioner as absconding in the case. The said case came to be registered as CC No. 159/2009. After registration of the said case A.1 moved the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge and obtained an order of anticipatory bail and got himself released on bail. Since the presence of this petitioner could not be secured, his case has now been split up and registered as CC No. 622/2012 on the file of Jurisdictional Magistrate. The case instituted against A.1 in CC No. 159/2009 is pending now before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends, the petitioner has not been served with any summons in the case. He had no knowledge of the case instituted against him. It is only after the police knocking at his doors armed with non-bailable warrant in CC No. 622/2012 recently he came to know about the present case and as A.1 has been granted anticipatory bail in the case registered in which the present petitioner is also an accused, as he hails from a respectable family having deep roots in the society, he be granted anticipatory bail.

The application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the State. The object of the bail is to secure the presence of an accused both during investigation and during trial. In this case, the occurrence has taken place on 8.1.2008. Initially this petitioner was shown as absconding in CC No. 159/2009 in which A.1 is facing trial for the same offences. As the presence of the petitioner could not be secured, his case is now split up and present case is registered. The contention of the petitioner is he had no knowledge of the case and he came to know only when the police knocked on his doors armed with non-bailable warrant. The present petitioner as indicated above is seeking for anticipatory bail in the case registered in the year 2008. That indicates, he is not made available to the Jurisdictional police or in pursuance of the process issued by the Court. In view of this, his conduct goes to show that he will not able to be secured for the purpose of taking his trial. Having regard to the offences alleged and the conduct of the petitioner, in the circumstances, it is not a fit case to grant him the relief of anticipatory bail as sought for by him. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petition and it is dismissed.