The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a bail petition filed by a petitioner, a proclaimed offender who avoided service of process for seven years. The Court held his conduct disentitled him from claiming bail.
The bail petition was dismissed as the petitioner was disentitled to bail due to his conduct as a proclaimed offender.
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.
CRL.P No. 1435 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:13301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1435 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. USMAN SADAKATH, S/O IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O NO.4-57-7, JOKATTE, BAIKAMPADY, 62, THOKURU, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT - 574 173
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOWDA H.V.T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SOWMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. LAKSHMANA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.0118/2012 OF C.C.NO.105/2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE MANGALORE NORTH P.S., MANGALURU, D.K. ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT, BY IMPOSING SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 has filed this bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging him on bail in C.C.No.105/2016 arising out of P.C No. 35/2012 on
the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Mangaluru, D.K, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 415, 421, 422, 423, 424, 427, 120(B) read with Section 120(B)(2) of IPC.
with interest. The petitioner has failed to repay the installments and failed to give any information with regard to his whereabouts, and the details of the vehicle. Hence,
the complainant/respondent No.2 left with no option, has filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate. The matter
was referred it under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. The investigating officer registered the FIR in Crime No.118/2012 of Mangalore North Police Station, Bunder (Mangalore). Later on, he submitted the 'B' final report on 06.08.2012. The said 'B' final report was objected by filing protest petition by 2nd respondent/complainant and the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, D.K., subsequently
by rejecting the 'B' final report, has taken cognizance and registered the case in C.C.No.105/2016. The process came to be issued against the petitioner and all along, he has absconded and process under Sections 82 and 83 of
Cr.P.c. also came to be issued. The petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court on 31.10.2023 and he
CRL.P No. 1435 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:13301
was taken to judicial custody. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking regular bail, but the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
case was registered in the year 2016, till 31.10.2023 for nearly more than seven years, the petitioner was not secured. The records further, disclose that the surety notice also came to be issued and later on, the proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. came to be issued and duly published. All along, warrant is being unexecuted and the petitioner is declared as a proclaimed offender. When the petitioner is declared as a proclaimed offender, subsequently, he surrendered in October 2023 and now again, he is seeking bail. The main contention is
that he has voluntarily surrendered before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, but the records discloses that, he is a proclaimed offender and all along, warrant is being issued against him, which compelled him to surrender after a lapse of seven years. He is capable of avoiding service for nearly seven years, and such conduct on the part of the petitioner does not authorize him to claim bail, though the offences alleged are triable by the learned Magistrate and are not punishable with death or life
CRL.P No. 1435 of 2024 NC: 2024:KHC:13301
imprisonment. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from claiming bail and his remedy is to face the trial and he has not shown any respect to law enforcing authority. Hence, no leniency can be shown against a person who has no respect to law enforcing authority.
Hence, the petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
URN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after voluntarily surrendering despite being a proclaimed offender absent for seven years.
Whether the petitioner's conduct of avoiding service of process for nearly seven years disentitles him from claiming bail.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mr. Usman Sadakath
The State of Karnataka
M/s. India Bulls Financial Service Ltd.
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
