Dismissed

Sharath Yadav @ Sharath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2023CRL.P/10151/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka addressed a petition for enlargement of bail (anticipatory bail) filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court rejected the request, holding the petitioner was a proclaimed offender who failed to appear in trial and did not seek judicial assistance when arrested in another case.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sharath Yadav @ Sharath Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 10151 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10151 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHARATH YADAV @ SHARATH, S/O. V. MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDING AT MS LAYOUT, NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, ANCHEPALYA VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU -560 060.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PANDURANGA G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUDHA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, KUMALAGODU POLICE STATION, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE

¶17

2 - CRL.P No. 10151 of 2022

¶18

EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME.NO.114/2015 OF KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302 READ WITH 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.281/2021.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard Sri. Panduranga G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶23

“ Wherefore , the above named petitioner

¶24

most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioner and direct the respondent police i.e., Kumbalagodu Police to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in Split-up S.C. No.281/2021 (Cr.No.114/2015) for the offence punishable u/s. 302 r/w Sec.34 of IPC, pending

¶25

3 - CRL.P No. 10151 of 2022

¶26

on the file of VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru,in the interest of justice."

¶27

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶28

The accused has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short).

¶29

Gist of the complaint averment reveals that the petitioner is the accused No.1, who was facing the trial in S.C. No.281/2021 as a split-up accused as he jumped the bail, which was granted to him earlier. The ordersheet produced along with the petitioner shows that for want of presence of the accused, coercive steps have been taken and proclamation is ordered as against the accused under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. and proclamation has been successfully made and accused is treated as a proclaimed offender.

¶30

The matter is also posted for recording the evidence of the prosecution under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., in view of the fact that the accused petitioner was not available for the trial in S.C. No.281/2021.

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 10151 of 2022

¶33

The accused had the benefit of bail by virtue of order passed in Crl.P. No.6726/2015 dated 28.10.2015 ordered by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. Subsequently, he jumped the bail and therefore, split-up charge sheet came to be filed.

¶34

Thereafter, the petitioner approached the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for grant of bail in Crl. Misc. No.676/2022, which was rejected by order dated 16.04.2022. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition Sri. Panduranga G., learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner was subsequently arrested in some other case and therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court resulting in his non-appearance and filing of split-up charge sheet. Therefore, he may be now granted benefit of anticipatory bail so that he would appear before the trial Court and face the trial in S.C. No.281/2021.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of anticipatory bail stating that the accused is

¶37

5 - CRL.P No. 10151 of 2022

¶38

a proclaimed offender and therefore, he cannot be granted the anticipatory bail as is not a law abiding citizen.

¶39

In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶40

Admittedly, the accused had the benefit of grant of anticipatory bail in Crl.P. No.6726/2015. Subsequently, it is the case of the accused petitioner that he was arrested in some other case and therefore he could not appear before the trial Court and a split-up charge sheet came to be filed, which is now pending in S.C. No.281/2021.

¶41

If that was so, it was always open for the petitioner to make necessary application before the Court seeking for exemption or requesting the Court to produce the accused before the trial Court by obtaining necessary body warrant. Such a procedure has not been adopted by the petitioner. On the contrary, he remained absent. It is case in which, he has been subsequently arrested and when the bail was granted, why he did not approach the Court thereafter are all not forthcoming from the grounds of the petition.

¶42

6 - CRL.P No. 10151 of 2022

¶43

On the contrary, after filing of the split-up charge sheet, coercive steps have been taken by the prosecution including proclamation as is contemplated under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C.

¶44

It is settled principles of law that a person, who seeks grant of anticipatory bail must establish that he is a law abiding citizen. In the case on hand, despite the proclamation has been ordered against the petitioner, he did not choose to appear before the Court in S.C. No.281/2021. On the contrary, he applied for grant of anticipatory bail, which was turned down by the learned District Judge and thereafter, approached this Court.

¶45

Taking note of the fact that the accused has already been treated as a proclaimed offender, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to exercise the special powers vested under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., admitting the request of the petitioner to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, pass the following:

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 10151 of 2022

¶48

O R D E R

¶49

The Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17 CT: AVB

Sharath Yadav @ Sharath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sharath Yadav @ Sharath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohith @ Sai Vs State of Karnataka

Venkatesh G Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhaskar B R Vs State by

Sri Sagayaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Lakshmikantha S R Vs State of Karnataka

Y Nagappa Vs the State of Karnataka