High Court rejected bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused No.4. The judge held the accused intentionally remained absent after committal without valid reasons, causing multiplication of trials and witness loss, precluding fit case for bail.
Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:12195 CRL.P No. 102353 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102353 OF 2023
BETWEEN: SRI NAGENDRA P., S/O P.PRABHAKAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O. 4TH CROSS, BHAGATH SINGH NAGAR, BALLARI-583101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL
Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE GANDHINAGAR POLICE STATION, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.4 IN S.C.NO.49/2023 ON THEF ILE OF COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (CRIME NO.33/2016 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 392, 401, 411 OF IPC R/W 34 OF IPC BY GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.4 has filed this petition u/sec.439 Cr.P.C. to grant him bail in Crime No.33/2016 for the offences punishable u/sec.392, 401, 411 r/w/s 34 IPC of Gandhinagar Police Station (S.C.No.49/2023 on the file of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ballari).
2.1 After committal, it was registered in
S.C.No.25/2023 on the file of II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Ballari. After committal, there was no communication to the petitioner and as such, he failed to appear before the Sessions Court. Due to the nonappearance of petitioner and accused No.2 and 3, the Sessions Court has issued non-bailable warrant against them. Later case against them was split up and separate case is registered in S.C.No.49/2023. However on 11.08.2023, they appeared before the Sessions Court and filed application to recall NBW. It was rejected and they
have taken into custody. Their bail application filed u/sec.439 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the Sessions Court.
2.2 While rejecting the bail application, the Sessions Court has wrongly observed that since 2016, accused No.2 to 4 (including the petitioner) are absconding and that there are number of cases pending against them. Till 04.03.2023, accused No.2 to 4 (including the petitioner) have regularly attended the trial.
Only after committal, they remained absent. Except the present case, no other cases are pending against the petitioner. The allegations against petitioner is that he has received stolen property and thereby committed the offence punishable u/sec.411 IPC. Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed and offer substantial surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court and prays to allow the petition and grant him bail.
3.1 Based on the complaint filed by Smt.Renuka, case was registered in Crime No.33/2016. During investigation, accused No.1 to 5 were arrested and recovery is made. Charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.295/2017 against accused No.1 to 5 alleging that accused No.1 to 3 are habitually involved in theft. On 04.03.2016, they committed robbery by snatching away the gold mangalya chain of complainant and sold it through accused No.4 and knowing fully well that it is a stolen property, accused No.5 has purchased it and thereby accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offences punishable u/ec.392, 401 r/w/s 34 IPC, accused No.4 has committed the offence punishable u/sec.411 IPC and accused No.5 has committed the offence punishable u/sec.413 IPC. Petitioner is also involved in Crime No.122/2015 and 9/2016.
3.2 Since accused No.5 remained absconding, case
was split up against him and separate charge sheet was filed in C.C.No.1829/2019 and case was proceeded against
accused No.1 to 4. Though the offence punishable u/sec.413 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, it appears by mistake the trial Court instead of committing the case to the Court of Sessions proceeded with the trial till 27.02.2023 and on 04.03.2023 after taking committal sureties, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3.3 Before the Sessions Court, accused No.1 was produced from judicial custody. However accused No.2 to 4 remained absent. Despite of issue of summons and nonbailable warrant, they did not choose to appear. Therefore, having regard to the fact that accused No.1 was in J.C., vide order dated 31.05.2023, the trial Court split up the case against accused No.2 to 4 and separate case was registered against them in S.C.No.49/2023. The trial was continued as against accused No.1 and ultimately he was acquitted on 03.10.2023.
3.4 In the meanwhile, accused No.2 to 4 appeared before the Court in S.C.No.49/2023 and sought for recalling warrant issued against them. Looking to the
conduct of accused No.2 to 4 in remaining unauthorized absent and thereby protracting the proceedings, the trial Court refused to recall the warrant, took them to judicial custody and proceeded with the matter. Vide impugned order, the trial Court has rightly rejected their bail application and prays to reject this petition also.
charge sheet came to be filed against accused No.1 to 5 alleging that accused No.1 to 3 are habitual offenders involved in committing theft and on 04.03.2016 at 1.30 a.m. while complainant and her grandson was sleeping on the terrace, they robbed her of gold mangalya chain and sold it to accused No.5 through accused No.4 and knowing fully well that it is a stolen property, accused No.4 and 5 have dealt with it.
absconding, case against him came to be split up in C.C.No.1829/2019 and trial was proceeded against accused No.1 to 4. After realizing that offence u/sec.413 IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, vide order dated 04.03.2023, the trial Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions after taking committal sureties.
in judicial custody and facing the uncertainty of securing
the presence of accused No.2 to 4 (including the petitioner), the trial Court has once against split up the case against them and it is registered in S.C.No.49/2023 and proceeded with the trial against accused No.1 in S.C.No.25/2023 and ultimately acquitted him on
03.10.2023.
have remained absconding (which appears to be a typographical error as the committal order is dated 04.03.2023), the trial Court has rightly refused to grant bail to accused No.2 to 4. This Court also does not find any justifiable grounds to grant bail to the petitioner. The incident is dated 04.03.2016 and on account of checkered history the trial is not concluded. On account of abscondence of accused No.5 and later by accused No.2 to 4, instead of one trial, the State is required to conduct 4 trials and on account of delay and repeated appearance to give evidence, the witnesses may lose interest, forget facts, won over by the accused and thereby making room for acquittal.
considered opinion that this is not a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner and accordingly, the following:
ORDER
Petition filed u/sec.439 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused No.4 is hereby rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
CLK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner, accused No.4, who failed to appear before the Sessions Court after committal without justifiable grounds.
Whether the petitioner's intentional absence warrants rejection of bail due to the state's loss of resources from multiple trials.
If the trial court correctly rejected bail given the accused's checkered history of non-appearance and the splitting of the case.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
SRI NAGENDRA P.
ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
J.M.KHAZI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
