Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 266 (KAR)

Nagaraja v. State of Karnataka

2001-03-21

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2001
ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—This case raises interesting question of law on the matter of bail. The Petitioner who is an accused in CC No. 14 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Molakalmuru, is accused of committing of an offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code along with other two accused. After the arrest and detention of the accused in Judicial Custody even after lapse of a period of 90 days as envisaged under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure the charge sheet was not filed. Therefore, the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of bail on the technical ground envisaged under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed and bail came to be granted with conditions on 31.1.2000. However, the Petitioner was not able to effectively avail the benefit of bail. The Police filed the final report on 3.2.2000. On 7.3.2000, the accused offered surety as directed in the bail order. In view of the filing of the charge sheet, the committal Court refused to accept the sureties and release the accused on the bail pursuant to the order passed on 31.1.2000. A revision was filed before the Sessions Court, Chitradurga in Criminal Revision Petition No. 59 of 2000. The learned Sessions Judge also rejected the Revision on the ground that provisions of Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure will have no application after filing of the charge sheet following the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in Sanjay Datt's case 1994 SCC 1433 . Being aggrieved by the order, the present Revision is filed. 2. The facts of the present case stand out distinctly from the facts found in Sanjay Dutt's case and in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur's case - Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra 1994 SCC 602 . In the said case, an application for grant of bail was filed during the pendency of investigation. The application for bail could not be disposed of although the time prescribed under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure had lapsed and the charge sheet had not been filed, but by the time, the said application came for consideration, the charge sheet was filed. The application for bail could not be disposed of although the time prescribed under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure had lapsed and the charge sheet had not been filed, but by the time, the said application came for consideration, the charge sheet was filed. Under those circumstances, it was held that after the final report is filed, the bail application of the accused has to be disposed of with reference to the provisions relating to grant of bail after filing of the final report and not on the basis of the technical right envisaged under Section 167 Code of Criminal Procedure . In the instant case, the facts are glaringly distinct. The bail application of the accused on the ground under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure is already allowed and he is granted bail. He had failed to avail the benefit of bail order by offering surety. Subsequently, the charge sheet came to be filed. Merely because the charge sheet was filed subsequently cannot have the effect of taking away the benefit of bail already granted. If at all the prosecution is opposed to the continuation of the bail, the prosecution has to necessarily resort to the provisions of Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking cancellation of the bail on the permissible grounds available in law. 3. In that view of the matter, the order of the trial Court and the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The accused-Petitioner is directed to be released on bail on the conditions imposed by the committal Court and if the case is already committed and pending before the Sessions Court at Chitradurga, the Sessions Judge before whom the case is pending, shall admit the bail to accused on the conditions imposed. 4. The request of the hand delivery of the operative portion of the order is granted.