Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1123 (KAR)

K. Somasekhar v. State of Karnataka

2014-12-26

B.V.NAGARATHNA, L.NARAYANA SWAMY

body2014
Judgment L. Narayana Swamy, J. 1. The petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379, 411 r/w 34 and 35 of IPC in C.C. No. 461/2011. After filing the charge-sheet, the same has been renumbered as Spl. C.C. No. 6/2014 by CBI police. The petitioner submitted that he had filed a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the same was allowed and bail was granted by order dated 27.11.2014. When he has transmitted the copy to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, an endorsement dated 1.12.2014 was issued stating that there are body warrant orders against the petitioner issued in other cases namely, Spl. C.C. Nos. 36/2014, 37/2014 and 14/2014. Hence, the benefit of bail order was denied for the said reasons. The same has been challenged in this habeas corpus petition. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that after examining the cases referred at Annexure-E dated 29.11.2014/01.12.2014 issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, there are no such body warrants have been issued in the said cases. On the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, he made an application for recalling the body warrants and the said cases have been adjourned to next date without assigning any reasons. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submits that when a bail order is granted in one criminal case, same cannot be deprived by referring the order passed under Sections267 and 269 of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Muthuramalingam v. State of Coimbatore and others reported in (2010) 2 MWN (Cri) 302 (DB) and another judgment reported in AIR 1987 SCC 1333 in the case of Ram Dass Ram v. State of Bihar and another. The bail granted in criminal case cannot be deprived unless he is involved in any other criminal case and in case it is deprived, it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. P.T. warrant issued under Section 269 of Cr.P.C. sine-qua-non for consideration of benefit of the bail granted to the petitioner. In the circumstances, endorsement issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, is without authority of law and non application of mind and misuse of exercise of power. Accordingly, he submits to allow this petition. 3. Sri. R. Devdas, learned Government Advocate, submits to dismiss this petition. In the circumstances, endorsement issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, is without authority of law and non application of mind and misuse of exercise of power. Accordingly, he submits to allow this petition. 3. Sri. R. Devdas, learned Government Advocate, submits to dismiss this petition. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the PT warrant issued. In the circumstances, the same cannot be re-considered in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for habeas corpus. In support of his submission, learned Government Advocate referred judgment reported in (2002) 2 SCC 210 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3810 ) in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and another v. Union of India and others and referred paragraph - 57 and submitted, in similar cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "We do not agree with the proposition that an accused being involved in a large number of criminal cases in different parts of the country if is not able to be released from custody even on getting bail orders in some cases, that itself would tantamount to violation of the right of a citizen under Article21 of the Constitution." It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petition has to be rejected, since the CBI has not made party to verify as to whether he is involved in any other criminal cases and all these cases are foisted by the CBI against the petitioner. In the circumstances, they are the necessary parties. In respect of the said submission, what has been examined by us is that the CBI is not arrayed as party. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government advocate for the respondents. 5. It is not disputed that the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail in Spl.C.C. No. 6/2014. When bail is granted, it is for the authority to release the person without assigning any reasons except verifying that whether he is involved in any other criminal cases or in judicial custody. In the instant case, the jail authority before whom the bail order has been placed has declined to release by assigning the reasons that PT warrants have been issued in three cases against the petitioner. Here, issuance of PT warrant under Section 269 of Cr.P.C., is not a ground to deny the liberty of the person. In the instant case, the jail authority before whom the bail order has been placed has declined to release by assigning the reasons that PT warrants have been issued in three cases against the petitioner. Here, issuance of PT warrant under Section 269 of Cr.P.C., is not a ground to deny the liberty of the person. PT has to be issued in respect of cases for a particular single appearance. If he is required for trial, evidence etc., particular order has to be issued to that effect. 6. The copies of the order passed in Spl.C.C. Nos. 36/2014, 37/2014 and 14/2014 were placed before us for verification and we find that general PT was issued and in the circumstances, impugned action of the Superintendent of Central Prison, Bangalore in rejecting and non-considering the bail order issued to that effect is not justified and contrary to provisions of law, more particularly under Article 21 of Constitution of India. Whenever bail order was granted, it is insisted by the competent authority, that bail is granted in a particular criminal case and he may be deprived, if he is in judicial custody or he is involved in any other criminal cases. Even without there being PT warrant, competent authority has to examine, whether he is involved in any other criminal cases. After verification of the same, the bail order is to be accepted and a person is to be released on bail. Liberty is more precious right of the person under the Constitution of India. But in the instant case, the bail order was granted on 27.11.2014 and endorsement issued on 29.11.2014 and even today he is not released on bail. The endorsement issued by the jail authority in not considering the bail on the ground that PT warrant is issued. It is discussed earlier that PT warrant cannot be issued generally. The said PT warrant has to be issued for particular hearing. The competent authority cannot reject the bail order without verifying as to whether he is involved in any other criminal case and order to that effect passed by the Competent Sessions Court. 7. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER "Petitioner is set free and we make it clear that the competent authority should verify before releasing him on bail as to whether he is involved in any other criminal case or whether there is an order of judicial custody. 7. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER "Petitioner is set free and we make it clear that the competent authority should verify before releasing him on bail as to whether he is involved in any other criminal case or whether there is an order of judicial custody. If not, the second respondent is directed to release the petitioner pursuant to the bail order granted in Spl. C.C. No. 6/2014." With these observations, petition stands allowed.