Manoj S/O. Gangappa Harinashikari vs State Of Karnataka

V. Srishananda, J

Petitioner is accused No.5 in SC No.37/2021 dated 03.12.2024 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Koppal and facing the charges for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. He has been enlarged on bail by order dated 08.12.2021.

However, as could be seen from the order sheet, on 25.09.2024, accused Nos.2 and 5 were absent and exemption application was filed, which was allowed in the morning session and matter was called in afternoon session. Order sheet shows that P.W.1 is absent but it also says that he has sought for an adjournment. Order sheet per se appears to be incorrect, having regard to the fact that if P.W.1 is absent, he could not have sought for time.

Nevertheless, learned counsel for accused Nos.2 and 5 were not present when the matter was called in the afternoon session. Therefore, learned Trial Judge issued non bailable warrant against accused Nos.2 and 5. On 21.10.2024, accused No.2 was arrested and he was taken to custody. On 30.10.2024, accused No.2 was produced before the Court through video conference and accused No.5 voluntarily appeared and filed an application under 70(2) of Cr.P.C. Same was rejected and accused No.5 was taken to the custody.

Thereafter, fresh bail applications were filed on behalf of accused Nos.2 and 5 which were rejected by the learned Trial Judge by order dated 03.12.2024.

Thereafter, accused No.5 is before this Court, in this petition.

Sri.Gouri Shankar Mot, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that rejecting the fresh bail application on the ground that accused Nos.2 and 5 jumped the bail is incorrect as they were exempted from appearance by the very same learned Trial Judge in the morning session and therefore, issue of non bailable warrant in the afternoon session on 25.09.2024 is totally unwarranted and apprehensions expressed by the learned Trial Judge that there is a scope for abscondence of accused No.5 is baseless and thus, sought for allowing the petition.

Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the action taken by the learned Trial Judge by noting that accused No.5 has jumped the bail.

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that on 25.09.2024, presence of accused Nos.2 and 5 were exempted by the very same learned Trial Judge.

However, in the afternoon session, non bailable warrant came to be issued. When accused No.5 was exempted from appearance, there was no scope for the learned Trial Judge to issue non bailable warrant against accused No.5.

Therefore, there is some amount of force in the argument put forth on behalf of the petitioner. However, exemption of accused No.5 did not grant any license to the Advocate who represented accused No.5 from not appearing before the Court again. Exemption was also only for accused No.5 and not for the Advocate.

Therefore, by directing the accused No.5/petitioner to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- as part of the bond amount, his request for grant of bail needs to be allowed in the interest of justice as a special case.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

i. Bail petition is allowed subject to payment of sum of Rs.25,000/- being the part of the bond amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

ii. Petitioner is directed to execute a fresh bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties by maintaining other conditions imposed vide order dated 08.12.2021.