Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2176 (KAR)

State Of Karnataka v. Imran

2020-11-03

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the State under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C. ) for cancellation of bail granted by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Crl.Misc.No.383/2019 vide order dated 28.05.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 506, 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC ) and Section 2(A) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 to respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.20/2019 of Basavanahalli Police Station, Chickmagaluru. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were served but unrepresented. 3. Heard the arguments of Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that while obtaining bail by respondent Nos.1 to 3 have made misrepresentation before the Court stating that the injured-Sandesh was already discharged from the hospital and on the said ground the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to respondent Nos.1 to 3. In fact, the injured was admitted to the Government M.G. Hospital, Chikkamagaluru on 15.05.2019 and discharged on 29.05.2019. Whereas, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail earlier to the discharge of injured i.e., on 28.05.2019. Therefore, the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge is required to be cancelled. 5. Perused the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 28.05.2019 in Crl.Misc.No.383/2019. 6. The major allegation against the accusedrespondents is for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 of IPC and Section 2(A) of Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981. During the course of arguments, the learned High Court Government Pleader also produced the copy of the discharge summary. On perusal of the discharge summary, it goes to show that the injured-Sandesh got admitted to the hospital on 15.05.2019 and the alleged incident took place on 14.05.2019 and discharged on 29.05.2019. Admittedly, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail on 28.05.2019 and on perusal of the order at paragraph No.8, the learned Sessions Judge considered other points including the submission made by the learned counsel for the accused that the complainant has been already discharged from the hospital and he is said to be out of danger. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of discharge of the complainant from the hospital, the bail has been granted. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of discharge of the complainant from the hospital, the bail has been granted. Even though some representations were made by the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused before the learned Sessions Judge that the injured has been discharged from the hospital but, no doubt, it is the duty of the learned Sessions Judge that he should confirm whether the injured is really discharged from the hospital or not. However, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to object the same before passing the order. He could have obtained the information from the concerned Investigating Officer regarding treatment and discharge of the injured, but the same has not done by the Public Prosecutor before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has also not got confirmed with regard to discharge. However, except that ground, there is no other ground made out by the learned High Court Government Pleader for cancellation of bail. 7. It is well settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411 with regard to the guidelines issued by exercising the powers of cancellation of bail, which is as under: Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another, It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail already granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail Necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large by permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. 8. On perusal of the order and the conditions imposed by the trial Court, absolutely there is no material placed on record to show that the accused persons have violated any of the conditions merely because a submission is made by the counsel during arguments. That itself is not a ground to recall the order or to cancel the bail without adequate reasons for exercising the power under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 9. That itself is not a ground to recall the order or to cancel the bail without adequate reasons for exercising the power under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 9. On perusal of the entire order, the learned Sessions Judge considering the application on all other ground including the submission made by the learned counsel, that itself is not a ground for cancellation of bail. Even otherwise, on perusal of discharge summary, it is not stated about the nature of injury sustained by the injured and nothing has been mentioned about any fractures or serious injuries sustained by the injured. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the petition for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, criminal petition is dismissed.