Dismissed

Mr. Sukhendu Haldar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2024CRL.P/380/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant sought cancellation of murder-accused's bail alleging breach of attendance conditions. Court held mere non-compliance without witness tampering or misuse did not justify cancellation, rejected the petition, and directed the Sessions Judge to complete the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; Sessions Judge directed to conclude trial within six months; accused must attend every hearing or bail stands deemed cancelled.

Mr. Sukhendu Haldar Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 380 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SUKHENDU HALDAR, F/O. DECEASED LATE SOHAN HALDAR, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT 129/24, S.N. ROY KOLKATA - 700 038.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY MISS. MEDHA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 067, RETD. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SOWMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MR. KARTHIK M. DAULAT, S/O. MR. B. N. MANJUNATH, NO.347/10, 58^TH CROSS, 3^RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B.LAKSHMANA., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. RANGANATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC PRAYING TO

¶17

SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE SESSIONS COURT (1^ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL) IN CRL.MISC.NO.433/2019.

¶18

TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN CRL.MISC.NO.1090/2018 BY THE

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶21

HONB’LE SESSIONS COURT(1^ST ADJ, BENGALURU RURAL)

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner/complainant has filed this petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail petition granted to respondent No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.1090/2018 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural, dated 28.08.2018.

¶25

The brief allegations of the prosecution is that

¶26

deceased Sohan Haldar was residing in flat No.22044 at Prestige Shantinikethana Apartment, situated within the

¶27

limits of Kadugodi Police Station. He has posted an advertisement in face book about selling the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-03-HV-4114. The accused after seeing this advertisment had visited the deceased on 01.08.2016 & 02.08.2016 at his flat and made friendship with the deceased under the pretext of purchasing the motor cycle. It is further alleged that on 03.08.2016, the accused gone to the said apartment with an intention to

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶29

kill the deceased by carrying silver potassium cyanide, which he obtained from CW42’s Company and at 1.00 p.m., to 2.45 p.m., when the deceased slept in his room, the accused under the guise of putting sugar in his mouth, poured silver potassium cyanide and thereby caused his death. It is alleged that later on, the accused took mobile phone, Axis Bank ATM cards, ATM card pin number, KTM bike’s key Etc., belonging to the deceased and came out of the flat and went away. It is also alleged that accused on 04.08.2016 drawn Rs.10,000/- by using ATM card of deceased from the Bank and again drawn Rs.12,000/from other Bank and on 06.08.2016, drawn Rs.5,000/from another Bank. Hence, he has been charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶30

The petitioner was arrested and was remanded to the custody. Subsequently, he has moved for regular bail petition and his bail petition came to be allowed by the I Additional District Judge, Bengaluru vide order dated 28.08.2018, in Crl.Misc.No.1090/2018 by passing following order:

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶32

“Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.

¶33

Petitioner/accused in S.C.69/2017 be released on bail on executing his personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/with one solvent surety with following conditions:

¶34

1) Petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶35

2 Petitioner/accused shall not remain unauthorized absent during trial in S.C.69/2017,

¶36

3) Pétitioner/accused shall give his attendance before SHO of respondent Police station on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday between 6.00 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. in a week till conclusion of trial.

¶37

4) Petitioner/accused shall furnish his authenticated photo identify proof of himself and his surety.”

¶38

4. Subsequently, trial proceeded and later on, the

¶39

complainant moved the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.433/2019 for cancellation of the bail. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the prosecution as well as respondent No.2/accused, dismissed the petition filed by the complainant/petitioner under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 22.04.2022.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶42

Being aggrieved by this order, the

¶43

petitioner/complainant is before this Court challenging this order.

¶44

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

¶45

counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.

¶46

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has violated the second & third conditions, wherein there is a specific direction that he shall not remain unauthorisedly absent during the trial in SC No.69/2017 and he shall mark his attendance before SHO on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday which he has not done. It is specifically asserted that the respondent/accused was absent on 05.09.2018, 11.02.2019, 12.02.2019, 23.02.2019, 25.10.2021 and 11.11.2021 and Court has issued warrant which was subsequently recalled by the Court. Hence, it is asserted that there is breach of condition and sought for

¶47

¶48

NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶49

cancellation of the bail order granted to the

¶50

accused/respondent No.2 herein.

¶51

The learned HCGP would support the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner /complainant. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 / accused would contend that he was in custody, which has prevented him from attending the Court on relevant dates and considering this aspect, warrant issued was recalled.

¶52

He further asserts that he was ignorant of marking attendance before the SHO, but he was regular before the Court on all dates of hearing.

¶53

Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, now it is relevant that the alleged offence is said to have taken place on 03.08.2016. The charge sheet was submitted in 2017 itself and accused/respondent No.2 was granted bail in 2018. He was in custody for nearly two years. It is relevant to note here that though the trial has commenced long back, till this date, the trial is not concluded. It is also the fundamental right of the accused

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶55

to seek speedy trial. But in the instant case, the records disclose that trial continued for nearly 6 to 7 years and still process being issued to some of the witnesses whose presence is not able to be secured.

¶56

At the same time, it is also important to note here that no allegations are made against respondent No.2 / accused regarding tampering of the witnesses or managing the witnesses. No such grounds are forthcoming and only allegation is non-compliance of bail conditions. As regards the condition of appearance before the Court, the trial Court has considered it and observed that since he was in custody, the warrant was recalled. Hence, when accused was in custody in other crime, he cannot be expected to appear before the Court and considering this aspect, warrant came to be recalled.

¶57

No doubt, the allegations do establish that accused/respondent No.2 did comply the condition No.3 of attending before the SHO on every Monday, Wednesday and Friday. But it appears to be harsh condition since the

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶59

trial is going on and respondent No.2/accused was regularly attending before the Court. The records disclose that matter was never adjourned for absence of the accused except for 3 to 4 dates when he was in custody. No allegations were made regarding tampering or threatening witnesses or witnesses being prevented from attending the Court. Hence, in what way the complainant is affected by violation of the condition of marking attendance before SHO is not at all forthcoming. Interestingly, the Investigation Officer did not bring it to the notice of the Court and the prosecution has not moved for cancellation of the bail. When the investigation is concluded and when trial is going on, matter seized in the Court of law and question of attendance before SHO has no relevancy. In fact, accused/respondent No.2 ought to have sought for relaxation of the said condition, but he has not done. However, it is apparent that the said condition is violated. But however, it has not adversely affected the petitioner/complainant herein in any way. On the contrary, the records disclose that accused /

¶60

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶61

respondent No.2 was facing trial for the last 6 to 7 years without there being any progress. Apart from that, the records also disclose that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Crl.A.No.801/2020 (arising out of SLP (crl.) No.1452/2019) ( VENKATESAN BALASUBRAMANIAN V. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, D.R.I. BANGALORE ). But the facts and circumstances of the said case were entirely different and it was case of drug trafficking and the accused therein was alleged to have been released wrongly under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and hence, the said bail was cancelled, but liberty was granted to move for regular bail. But the facts of the case have no relevancy with present case in hand.

¶63

She has further placed reliance on a decision reported in Apex Court in JT 2002 (6) SC 115 ( PANDIT DNYANU KHOT vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ). But again it is

¶64

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶65

pertaining to Section 167 of Cr.P.C. which has no applicability in this case.

¶66

She has also placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Crl.A.No.888-891/2003 ( STATE OF GUARAT vs. SALIMBHAI ABDULGAFFAR SHAIKH & OTHERS ), 2022 SCC on line SC 552 ( P. vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER ) and (1994) SUPP. 6. SCR ( DOLAT RAM AND ORS. V. THE STATE OF HARYANA ). But the facts and circumstances of these matters are entirely different and there the Apex Court has noticed tampering the prosecution witnesses interference in investigation etc., But in the instant case no such allegations have been made and admittedly, the bail is a rule and jail is an exception.

¶67

Apart from that, the Supreme Court in number of decisions, has laid down certain guidelines in respect of cancellation of the bail. The Apex Court has clearly held that the Court should be slow enough while canceling the

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶70

bail and the bail can only cancelled under following conditions:

¶71

“1. When the person on bail is found tampering with the evidence either during the investigation or during the trial;

¶72

2. When the person on bail commits similar offence or any heinous offence during the period of bail;

¶73

3. When the person on bail is absconded and the trial of the case gets delayed on that count;

¶74

4. When it is alleged that the person on bail is terrorizing the witness and committing acts of violence against the police;

¶75

5. When the person on bail creates serious law and order problems in the society and he has become a hazard on the peaceful living of the people;

¶76

6. When it is found that the subsequent events make out a non bailable offences or a graver offences;

¶77

7. When the High Court found that there was a wrong exercise of judicial discretion to grant the bail to the accused;

¶78

8. When the circumstances proved that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him, it is sufficient ground to cancel the bail; &

¶79

9. If the life of the accused person on bail itself be in danger.”

¶80

None of these conditions are applicable to case in hand

¶81

and it is not a case of abscondance or terrorizing witnesses

¶82

etc., No doubt, there are certain allegations regarding the

¶83

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶84

petitioner subsequently involved in the offence under Sections 457 & 380 as well as under the coca Act. But he

¶85

was not arrested in those matters or already enlarged on bail. In the above case he is facing trial for nearly 6 to 7 years. Considering these facts & circumstances, the principles enunciated in the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not assist the petitioner in any way. However, considering the grounds urged, it is necessary to issue direction to the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the main matter at the earliest, considering the fact that trial is being prolonged for a long period. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

The petition stands rejected .

¶88

However, learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to dispose of the matter within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order by taking up the matter day to day as contemplated under Section 309 Cr.P.C.

¶89

It is further made clear that respondent No.2 / accused shall appear before the learned

¶90

NC: 2024:KHC:9150 CRL.P No. 380 of 2023

¶91

13 -

¶92

Sessions Judge on each and every date of hearing, without seeking exemption and in the event of his unauthorized absent, the learned Sessions Judge shall take him into custody and the bail granted to him earlier will be deemed to be cancelled.

¶93

He shall also comply the other conditions imposed by learned Sessions Judge by earlier order.

¶94

Sd/JUDGE

¶95

DDU/DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Mr. Sukhendu Haldar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sukhendu Haldar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Srisyla Vs State of Karnataka

Sanjith C Vs State of Karnataka

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sreenivasa R Vs State Rep by Public Prosecutor

Manjunath @ Kalla Manja Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mehaboob @ Mybu @ Mybob Vs State of Karnataka