The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a bail petition filed by an accused under Section 439 CrPC. He was charged with attempted murder and related offenses under the IPC. The court found he absconded after committal, causing surety forfeiture, and failed to inform of his address change.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9722/2022
BETWEEN:
IMRAN @ MADY IMRAN S/O ANWAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NIL, BEHIND ALLA BI HOSPITAL EDAHITHNAGAR, K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045
….PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABDUL SAB C.B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY R.T. NAGAR POLICE REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVT. PLEADER HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.87/2016 REGISTERED BY R.T. NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 307, 148, 147, 324 R/W 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-59) IN S.C.NO.1090/2019.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.2
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.87/2016 (S.C.No.1090/2019) of R.T.Nagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC, pending on the file of LVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59), Bengaluru City.
The petitioner was apprehended and later on he was enlarged on bail. Subsequently, the investigating officer completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet against the accused. After submission of the charge
3
sheet, learned magistrate has taken cognizance and then passed a committal order committing him to the sessions Court and further he has obtained surety. Then the matter was placed before the learned sessions judge and registered in S.C.No.1307/2017. However summons were unserved to the petitioner on the ground that he is not residing in the given address and all along warrant came to be unexecuted. Then the case against the present petitioner was split up and registered in S.C.No.1090/2019 and notice to surety was issued.
Then the surety notice was served and surety was appeared before the Court, but he was unable to produce the present petitioner and as such surety bond came to be forfeited and the proceedings for recovery of the surety amount of Rs.50,000/- were initiated against the surety. Mean while proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. was issued against petitioner and after proclamation, the matter was set down for recording evidence under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. In between the
4
petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Now he has moved the bail petition before the learned sessions judge and same was rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
Perused the records.
the records, it is evident that the offence is said to have been committed in 2016 i.e., precisely on 22.03.2016. The allegations were regarding the petitioner committing the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 324 read with Section 149 of IPC. The records also disclose that initially he was enlarged on bail and he was also offered surety while committing the matter but however, after getting bail, he made himself unavailable and all the efforts to secure his presence went in vain.
5
Further it is also evident that the petitioner after committal of the matter did not made available himself and surety notice came to be executed and surety was present before the Court and he failed to secure the presence of the petitioner. Hence, surety bond of Rs.50,000/- was forfeited to the State and surety proceedings were initiated in Crl.Misc.No.5767/2019. That being the case now the petitioner on the ground that he was earlier granted bail and he was not served with the summons, is seeking regular bail. The conduct of the petitioner disclose that he was not approachable. Though the matter was pending since 2016, because of his non-appearance, the matter is still pending. It is asserted that he is in custody since 09.06.2022, but that itself is not a ground. Though he has submitted that he has changed the address that is the reason that the summons could not be served but it was his duty to intimate the same to investigating officer after
6
committal of the matter. But he did not made any such attempts and even he was not available for the surety.
ORDER
The petition stands dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
NS CT:NR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether discretion to enlarge an accused on regular bail can be exercised when he absconded after committal and caused forfeiture of surety.
Whether failure to intimate change of address to the investigating officer after committal justifies the denial of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
IMRAN @ MADY IMRAN
STATE OF KARNATAKA
RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
