AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M G Uma, J
Petitioner-accused No.4 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.5/2019 of City Market Police Station, pending in SC No.209/2020 on the file of the learned LXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of IPC on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sri M. Shekarappa- PSI.
Heard Sri Udaya Kumar M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. M.M.Waheeda, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State. Perused the materials on record.
In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS
The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4. It is to be noticed that on merits, the petitioner was granted bail vide order dated 16.01.2019 subject to conditions. In the meantime, the matter was committed to Sessions Court and now pending in SC No.209/2020. The order sheet pertaining to the Sessions Court discloses that till 29.09.2022, summons could not be served against the petitioner. On 29.09.2022, NBW was issued. Inspite of that, his presence cannot be secured. Finally he was apprehended on 20.02.2024 i.e., after lapse of over one and half years. Since then, he is in judicial custody.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not served with summons cannot be accepted when the petitioner had given his permanent address while enlarging him on bail and it cannot be contended that he was not notified about issuance of summons or warrant. It is to be noted that even his surety was served with notice. Inspite of that, the presence of the accused cannot be secured. All these facts and circumstances disentitles the petitioner from seeking bail. However, the fact remains that the trial Court has not yet begun the trial and it is at the stage of hearing before charge. Even though the petitioner was apprehended on 20.02.2024, till today he is in judicial custody. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that one more chance could be given to the petitioner by enlarging him on bail with stringent conditions, which will take care of the interest of prosecution.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.5/2019 of City Market Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
d). If the petitioner remains absent for two consequent hearing dates, the prosecution can seek for cancellation of bail by filing necessary application.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.