Quashed

Mr Shankar R Bhavani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2017CRL.P/354/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a criminal petition, quashed an order requiring the petitioner to surrender his passport. The court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit, produce sureties, and appear at specific trial stages before allowing travel. The suo motu I.A. was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Order directing surrender of passport quashed; petitioner to file affidavit, produce sureties, and appear at specific stages to qualify for travel permission.

Mr Shankar R Bhavani Vs State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.354 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr. Shankar R. Bhavani, Son of Revanasiddappa L.J., Aged about 32 years, C/of J-124, 3^rd Cross, Pipeline Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 003.

¶9

Presently working as Senior Manager, E.A.I.C.U, Business Process, Mahindra Satyam, 2901M, Tasman Drive, Suite No.106, Santaclara, CA-95054, U.S.A.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(By Shri P.N.Hegde, Advocate)

¶12

¶13

AND:

¶14

State of Karnataka, By Subramanya Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru , Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶15

Smt. Chandramma, Wife of N.R.Narasimha, 50 years, No:1711/10, 3^rd Main Road, Devaiah Park near, Bengaluru – 560 003.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(By Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Respondent No.2 notice dispensed with)

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 7.1.2017 passed by the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.512/2015.

¶20

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Notice to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶23

¶24

The petitioner is said to be accused of offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 354, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for brevity).

¶25

The petitioner is presently residing in the United States and is employed there. On account of the criminal case that was instituted and since the petitioner was not readily available before the court below, the court below had issued a ‘Look out notice’. Since the petitioner had no intention of avoiding the criminal proceedings, he had approached this court seeking that the ‘Look out notice’ be quashed in order to enable him to come to India and to appear before the court without being arrested. Accordingly, this court had quashed the ‘Look out notice’.

¶26

The petitioner has now entered appearance before the court below and seeks to participate in the proceedings. The court below however, has take a strict view of the petitioner’s conduct and in order to ensure that he participates at the trial till

¶27

¶28

its completion, has demanded the petitioner to deposit his Passport before the jurisdictional police. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this court.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶30

that the proceedings are at a nascent stage and by the time the trial is completed, it would require several months. The petitioner has serious commitments with his employer in USA. and he is obliged to account for his services which are valued at over 80000 $. Any kind of default on the part of the petitioner, is likely that he would face yet another criminal proceeding instituted in USA by his employer and therefore, the learned counsel would submit that neither is he seeking to avoid the court proceedings in India nor would he like to be mulcted with further criminal proceedings by his employer in USA. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner’s continued presence in India may not be necessary.

¶31

¶32

The petitioner shall therefore ensure that he is present

¶33

at all the necessary stages at which the criminal court in India may require his presence. He shall file an affidavit to that effect and also shall be placed on such terms as the court below deems fit. Accordingly, the petitioner shall file an affidavit before the court below undertaking to appear before the court below on all necessary dates of hearing, and particularly he shall be present on the date on which he would record his plea, the date on which the charges would be framed and during the recording of Section 313 statement.

¶34

Since there is no dispute about the identity of the petitioner, his presence during the examination of all the witnesses may not be necessary. This is an aspect which the Trial Court shall examine in considering exempting the petitioner from appearance on such dates of hearing and to impose any further condition as to his requisite appearance before the court below, apart from at the stages mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner apart from filing an affidavit, shall

¶35

¶36

furnish two sureties for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) each in this regard. On satisfying these conditions and such other conditions which the Trial Court may impose, the petitioner may be given permission to travel out of India and back to India as and when required by the Trial Court. Hence, the order of the court below directing the petitioner to surrender his Passport to the jurisdictional police, is quashed.

¶37

I.A.1/2017 is disposed of as a consequence.

¶38

Sd/- JUDGE

¶39

Mr Shankar R Bhavani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Shankar R Bhavani v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J Hemalatha Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Narendra Jain Vs Smt. Kalpana S Mehta

M/S Granitec Industries Vs M/S Ashish Metal

B R Jayaram Vs State of Karnataka

Sri M P Puttaraju Vs Ulsoor Gate Police Station

Smt S D Jayamma W/O K C Rajashekar Vs L. Prakash S/O R Lakshminarayana