Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 388 (KAR)

Arjun v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-11

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has sought for regular bail under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crime No.221/2017 of Brahmapur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC). 2. The complainant in the case is the Police Inspector of the respondent Police station. The summary of his complaint registered in the respondent police station on 09.08.2017 at 5.30 a.m. is that on the very same day when the complainant along with his staff was on patrolling duty at about 2.45 a.m., he received a credible information that a group of persons have gathered near city bus stand, near platform there, preparing for committing dacoity. Immediately, the complainant secured two panchas and joined by them along with his staff, proceeded to the spot and hiding at a distance kept a watch on the alleged group, which could not notice them. By their activities he suspected and joined by his team attempted to catch them, in which process, he was able to apprehend three persons on the spot and from them ascertained the details of other two accused who had ran away from the place. Among those two persons who had ran away, was the present petitioner also. According to the complainant, when the persons who are apprehended on the spot were physically searched, he noticed in their possession an iron rod, masks to cover their face, knife and chilly powder, by which he confirmed that they were making preparation to commit dacoity. As such, along with the apprehended accused he returned to the station and lodged a complaint which was registered in respondent station Crime No.221/2017 against the five accused for the offences punishable under sections 399 and 402 of IPC. After conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is innocent of the alleged offences and he was not aware of the alleged offences. There is no criminal antecedent. In the said circumstance, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. After conducting the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused is innocent of the alleged offences and he was not aware of the alleged offences. There is no criminal antecedent. In the said circumstance, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, while reiterating the contentions taken up by him in his statement of objections, submitted that from the date of the alleged offence till he was apprehended in November, 2019 the present petitioner had remained absconded, even the accused no.1 who was enlarged on bail also had remained absconded, as such, due to non-availability of the accused, case against them could not be proceeded in the Court below. In such situation and also considering the heinous nature of the offences, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. A perusal of the material placed before this Court at this stage and prima facie would go to show that the complainant claims to have recovered from the possession of the apprehended accused an iron rod, knife, masks for covering face, chilly powder, etc. by which he came to a conclusion that they were making preparation for committing dacoity. The identity of the present accused was said to have been ascertained by co-accused who were apprehended in the spot. A perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet of the trial Court produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner would also go to show that since the present petitioner/accused no.4 could not be secured by the respondent police, the Court had ordered for filing of split up charge sheet against him. It is only thereafter at the repeated issuance of non-bailable warrant, the present petitioner/accused no.4 could be secured and produced before the Judge on 03.11.2019. As such, from the date of the alleged offence which is on 09.08.2017, for more than two years the present petitioner was not available to the Investigating Officer or to the Court. Even at the end also his presence could only be secured by execution of non-bailable warrant but not otherwise. In such a situation, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that securing the presence of the accused for the trial would be very difficult, deserves to be taken into consideration. Even at the end also his presence could only be secured by execution of non-bailable warrant but not otherwise. In such a situation, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that securing the presence of the accused for the trial would be very difficult, deserves to be taken into consideration. Accordingly, when securing the present petitioner/accused for trial would be a difficult task and also the alleged offence is serious in its gravity, I am of the view that the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.