Shashi Kumar @ Moole 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 C.C.No.9387/2017 (Crime No.537/2016) of Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 394 and 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 case has been registered against this petitioner arraigning him as accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 397 of IPC and he was granted bail on 20.06.2017. This petitioner appeared before the Trial Court till 13.01.2020, and thereafter he did not appear before the Trial Court for a period of almost two years. The Trial Court issued non-bailable warrant and also cancelled the bail and forfeited the bond amount executed by the surety as well as this petitioner and also issued proclamation and only after issuing the proclamation, he was secured and thereafter he filed an application to enlarge him on bail. The Trial Court has rejected the bail application in coming to the conclusion that this petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court even though P.W.1 was examined before the Trial Court and thereafter on account of non-appearance of this petitioner after issuance of proclamation, he has been secured on 18.12.2021.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner met with an accident and he was under continuous treatment and hence he could not appear before the Trial Court. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner undertakes to appear before the Trial Court regularly and hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that this petitioner last appeared on 30.01.2020 and thereafter he did not appear before the Trial Court and hence non-bailable warrant was issued and bail was cancelled and surety notice was also issued and inspite of the same, he did not appear before the Trial Court and hence proclamation was issued and after the issuance of the proclamation only, he has been secured on 18.12.2021. This matter is of the year 2017 and till date, the evidence has not been recorded on account of non-assistance of the petitioner.

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, this petitioner as well as accused No.1 both of them were enlarged on bail in 2017 and thereafter though he appeared before the Trial Court for some time, from January 2020, this petitioner did not appear before the Trial Court and hence non-bailable warrant was issued and bond was forfeited and surety notice was also issued and the petitioner did not make any efforts to recall the warrant issued by the Trial Court. The petitioner has been secured only after issuance of proclamation against him. Even there was a closure of Court after 25.03.2020 and after the commencement of the Court proceedings also, the petitioner did not file any application and only after the proclamation, he has been secured i.e., on 18.12.2021. When such being the case, the petitioner was granted bail by exercising the discretion and he has not obeyed the conditions imposed on him and not assisted the Court.

When such being the material available on record, the question of again exercising the discretion in favour of the petitioner does not arise and with great difficulty he has been secured after issuance of proclamation. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

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

ORDER

The petition is rejected.