Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2094 (KAR)

Krishnamurthy v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-21

B.A.PATIL

body2020
JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - Criminal Petition No.5533/2020 has been preferred by petitioner-accused No.1 and Criminal Petition No.5537/2020 has been preferred by petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.237/2016 of Kollegala Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354B, 326, 307, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC (pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kollegal in S.C.Nos.5155/2017 and 5034/2017). 2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. M.R.Nanjunda Gouda for petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya for the respondent-State. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused that they have already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court. But when the matter has been posted for evidence, neither the petitioners nor the counsel appeared before the Court, therefore, non-bailable warrant and proclamation has been issued as against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners-accused have not remained absent intentionally. On 23.3.2020 Government declared locked down due to Pandemic Covid-19 and as such no notice has been served to them and because of noncommunication between the counsel and the petitionersaccused, they have remained absent. They were regular during the course of previous hearing. They are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 3 on anticipatory bail. 5. But it is the contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioners-accused are the proclaimed offenders. In view of the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171 the petitioners-accused are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the said decision. In the said decision it has been made clear that if the accused has been declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of Cr.P.C. then he is not entitled to be released on Anticipatory Bail. Similar issue came up before this Court in Criminal Petition No.7466/2018. This Court by order dated 29.1.2019 by upholding the contentions has released the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Similar issue came up before this Court in Criminal Petition No.7466/2018. This Court by order dated 29.1.2019 by upholding the contentions has released the petitioner on anticipatory bail. On perusal of the factual matrix of the case on hand, already the accused persons have appeared before the Court, subsequently remained absent, because of Pandemic Covic-19 they have not received the communication and the Courts were also not functioning and in that light the non-bailable warrant and proclamation has been issued. When it is submitted that they will regularly attend the Court without fail and ready to abide by the conditions, in that light, if by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice. 7. In that light, these petitions are allowed. The petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.237/2016 of Kollegala Rural Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354B, 326, 307, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC (pending on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kollegal in S.C.Nos.5155/2017 and 5034/2017), subject to the following conditions: i. Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. ii. They shall surrender before the trial Court within 20 days from today, failing which this order automatically stands cancelled. iii. They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. iv. They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer once in 15 days in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the trial is concluded. v. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.