Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 902 (KAR)

Manjunath @ Bonda Manjunath v. State Of Karnataka

2020-05-22

K.NATARAJAN

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for granting regular bail. 2. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No.3353/2018 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, wherein he is arraigned as accused No.7 for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the I.P.C.). 3. The case of the prosecution is that, the Sub- Inspector of Police of Thalaghattapura Police Station registered a suo-moto case against seven persons on 30-11-2015. It is alleged that the petitioner and other accused gathered in a lonely place with deadly weapons and prepared for committing dacoity. Immediately, the complainant along with his staff apprehended accused Nos.1 to 4 on the spot, recovered vehicles, weapons, chilli powder packet, etc. and registered a case in Crime No.486/2015. Subsequently, they have been released on bail by the Sessions Court. It is alleged that this petitioner being accused No.7 was remained absent and absconded. Therefore, a split-up charge-sheet was ordered to be filed. Accordingly, the original case has been committed to the Sessions Court and numbered as S.C. No.161/2018. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and he is in judicial custody. The bail petition came to be rejected by both Committal and Sessions Court. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that previously, the petitioner was granted bail. Since the petitioner was arrested in a murder case in S.C. No.309/2018 and he was in judicial custody, he was unable to appear before the Committal Court and until, he has been acquitted by the Sessions Court in the said murder case, he was not able to attend the case. His absence was bonafide. The co-accused are on bail. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He is ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, learned counsel prayed for granting bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition. Mainly, on the ground that, the accused violated the bail conditions, absconded and delayed the process of the Court. If he is granted bail, he may again likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition. Mainly, on the ground that, the accused violated the bail conditions, absconded and delayed the process of the Court. If he is granted bail, he may again likely to abscond and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned High Court Government Pleader and perusal of the records goes to show that previously this accused and co-accused were granted bail. The previous bail order in Criminal Miscellaneous No.840/2016 dated 5-7-2016 has been produced. It is not in dispute that all the accused were granted bail by the Sessions Court at the crime stage. The alleged offences are punishable with Section 399 and 402 of the I.P.C. The main case is said to be committed to the Sessions Court and pending for trial. The absence of the petitioner is said to be bonafide as he was arrested by the Police and taken to custody in S.C. No.309/2018. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner was in judicial custody in a murder case and until, the accused petitioner obtained acquittal in S.C. No.309/2018, he has not been able to attend the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been controverted by the learned High Court Government Pleader in order to reject the contention of the petitioner. The offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The only apprehension of the learned High Court Government Pleader is that, if the petitioner is granted bail again, he may abscond. In my considered opinion, the apprehension of the prosecution may be safeguarded by imposing certain conditions and if bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. In my considered opinion, the apprehension of the prosecution may be safeguarded by imposing certain conditions and if bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for bail. Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner-accused is enlarged on bail in C.C. No.3353/2018 on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 399 and 402 of the I.P.C., subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees seventy-five thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court or Sessions Court and furnishing of the sureties for the present is dispensed with. However, the sureties shall be furnished as and when directed by the trial Court/committal Court; ii) The petitioner shall also deposit the penalty amount for earlier bond by filing necessary application for seeking remission for the previous bond amount; iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court regularly without fail; iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness directly or indirectly; and v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences. The Committal Court is directed to commit the matter to Sessions Court immediately after compliance of the order and the Sessions Court to take up the matter along with its main case.