Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1137 (KAR)

T. R. Ramanujam @ Ravi State of Karnataka v. .

2013-09-20

N.ANANDA

body2013
JUDGMENT The petitioner is apprehending arrest in Crime No.56/2007 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. 2. At the first instance, petitioner was before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.180/2007 and anticipatory bail was granted subject to following conditions: i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses, nor hamper the investigation, in any manner. ii) He shall co-operate with the Investigation Officer for the purpose of investigation and interrogation. iii) He shall move for regular bail before the jurisdictional Magistrate within 30 days from the date of his arrest and release on bail. iv) He shall mark his attendance before the respondent police, once in a month on every second Monday, till filing of charge sheet. v) He shall not jump bail. 3. The petitioner did not move for bail before the jurisdictional court within 30 days. It is also not clear whether petitioner had appeared before the investigation officer. The final report is filed. The court has issued non-bailable warrant. Therefore, petitioner had again sought for anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.532/2013. The learned Sessions Judge having regard to facts and circumstances of the case and also date of registration of crime and order made in Crl.Misc.No.180/2007 dismissed the petition. 4. The learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 (in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others). In the aforestated judgment, the Supreme Court deferring from the view taken in the case of Salauddin reported in (1996) 1 SC 667 has held that Anticipatory Bail could not be granted for a limited period. On the other hand, anticipatory bail granted would be in force till the 4 applications either under 437 Cr.P.C., or 439 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, is decided. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that once anticipatory bail is granted, the same would be in force till the conclusion of the trial. 6. In the aforestated judgment, the Supreme Court has held: "8. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under: "438. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that once anticipatory bail is granted, the same would be in force till the conclusion of the trial. 6. In the aforestated judgment, the Supreme Court has held: "8. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under: "438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.-(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:- (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable ffence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. (1-A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court. (1-B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice. (1-B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including - (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly,-make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1)." 7. In my considered opinion, the view expressed by the Supreme Court is not available to the petitioner who had been granted bail in the year 2007. The petitioner having failed to comply with the directions given in the earlier order, cannot find fault with the trial court. The court while granting anticipatory bail in Cril.Misc.No.180/2007 has followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 7 Salauddin's case. The trial court could not have anticipated that in the year 2011, the Supreme Court would take a slightly different view. 8. The petitioner has no regard to the court order. The court while granting anticipatory bail in Cril.Misc.No.180/2007 has followed the law laid down by the Supreme Court in 7 Salauddin's case. The trial court could not have anticipated that in the year 2011, the Supreme Court would take a slightly different view. 8. The petitioner has no regard to the court order. The petitioner has been enjoying unbridled liberty from the date of registration of crime i.e., from 09.03.2007. Therefore, his apprehension of arrest is also not tenable. The trial court has rightly rejected the bail application. 9. It is needless to state that relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C., cannot be granted time and again as and when the petitioner approaches the court. The petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.