Rangaswamy vs State Of Karnataka

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.49/2017 of Vinobhanagar Police Station, Shivamogga, for the offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC at the first instance and during the crime stage, he was enlarged on bail on 20.03.2017. Thereafter, charge-sheet is filed and summons is also issued and the accused did not appear before the Court and non-bailable warrant was issued and the same was not executed. While filing the charge-sheet, the offence under Section 395 of IPC is invoked instead of Section 394 of IPC. Even after filing of the charge-sheet in the year 2017 itself, the accused did not appear before the Court and warrant was also issued and ultimately on 21.10.2021, he was arrested and now he is in custody.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that at the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was aged about 19 years and now he is 23 years and the Court has to take note of the said fact into consideration. The learned counsel submits that the offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and due to miscommunication, he could not appear before the Trial Court and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the bail was granted on 20.03.2017, and after the bail was granted, he has furnished the sureties and on the very next day he did not appear before the Trial Court and hence non-bailable warrant was issued. Later on, after two years of hearing, he had filed an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court allowed the said application on cost of Rs.200/- and again on the next day also he did not appear before the Court and in the meanwhile, the charge-sheet is also filed and after the filing of the charge-sheet, he did not appear before the Trial Court from 2017 and hence there are no reasons to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner once again.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly the Court had directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the order sheet and on perusal of the order sheet, the very same material is found that after granting of bail in favour of him by exercising the discretion, he did not appear before the Trial Court and ultimately on 21.10.2021, he was arrested after lapse of four years. When such being the case, if bail is granted again, there are chances of fleeing away from justice and with great difficulty after four years he was secured before the Court and now he is in custody and the presence of the petitioner is required to dispose of the matter. Hence, I do not find any reasons to exercise the discretion once again in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 22 years and the age is not the criteria and whether the petitioner has complied with the order of the Court when discretion has been exercised is the criteria and he did not comply with the Court order and continuously he was absent before the Trial Court. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as soon as possible.