Accused in a robbery-preparation case (Sections 399 and 402 IPC) sought fresh bail after arrest on an old warrant. Having previously absconded after release on bail for over four years and proceedings having been initiated against their surety, the High Court held them not amenable to judicial process and dismissed the petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.998 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT CHANUVALLI VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 127.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SOWMYA D Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY KUDURU POLICE , STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.406/2016 OF KUDUR
POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 399, 402 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI IN C.C.NO.449/2017, THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 22.12.2023 IN CRL. MISC. NO.1056/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.p.C. for enlarging them on bail in CC.No.449/2017 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Magadi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC.
Crl.Misc.No.18/2017 by III Additional Sessions Judge, Ramnagar. However, after obtaining the bail, the petitioners did not honor the bail conditions and remained absent. Hence, warrant came to be issued against them. They were arrested and were produced before the concerned Court and were remanded to custody. Then the petitioners have approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking a regular bail once again and their bail petition came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court.
were triable by Court of Sessions. The alleged offences are said to have committed in 2016. Later on the petitioners were enlarged on bail. But after obtaining regular bail, they did not appear before the learned Magistrate regularly and hence, warrant was issued against the present petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 & 3. Subsequently, the order sheet of the trial Court dated 22.02.2019 discloses that notice has been issued to the surety and notice is served on the
surety. But however, surety did not respond and hence, separate miscellaneous case was registered against the present petitioners as well as their surety under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. When the warrant with show cause notice came to be issued on 17.11.2023, for non-execution of the warrant, on 01.12.2023 the petitioners were arrested and produced before the Court. They were remanded to custody and hence, now they are before this Court.
regular absence of the petitioners. Hence, the petition being devoid of any merits, does not survive for
consideration and accordingly, it stands dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to accused who earlier absconded after being enlarged on bail and remained absent for over four years.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Kiran M.
Sri. Ranganatha
State of Karnataka represented by Kuduru Police
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
