KABC010017602023
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46)
DATED THIS 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT:
Sri. Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B.,
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

Petitioner
CRL.MISC. No.565/2023
Prakash Babu,
S/o Krishnappa, a/a 35 years,
R/a No.461, Ashwathnagar,
3rd Cross, Munekolalu,
Bangalore-560 03.
(By Sri/Smt: Shrinivas
Kulkarni.M, Adv.)
AND
Respondent
State by HSR Layout P.S.,
Bangalore.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.438 OF Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this petition
U/s.438 of Cr.P.C. praying for an order to grant anticipatory bail in
his favour and direct the respondent police to release him on bail
in the event of his arrest in the case in their Crime No.147/2020 in
the interest of justice.
2. On the basis of information of Sri v. Munireddy, Police
Inspector of of respondent Police Station Bangalore, the
respondent police have registered the case in Crime No.5/2018
against the petitioner for the offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6
2
Crl.Misc.No.565/2023
and 7 of ITP Act, 1956 and Sec.370 of IPC. And after completion
of investigation submitted charge sheet against the petitioner
before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.

Now the petitioner
being accused is apprehending his arrest by the respondent
police. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition and
thereby he has prayed for allowing the petition.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed objection to this
bail petition in detail by submitting that this bail petition is not
maintainable in law or on facts of the case and for the reasons
stated in the objection and has prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
4.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the
materials on record.
5.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are
as under:
1. Whether the petitioner has made out sufficient
grounds for granting anticipatory bail in his favour in
Crime No.147/2020 of HSR Layout P.S., at this stage
as sought for?
2. What order?
6. This Court has answered the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
7.Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is
evident to note that the respondent police have registered case
against the petitioner and others in Crime No.147/2020 for the
offences punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370
3
Crl.Misc.No.565/2023
of IPC, on the complaint of Sri V. Munireddy, Police Inspector of
of respondent police station, Bangalore. After completion of
investigation the respondent police have submitted charge sheet
against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court.
Now the petitioner is abscondee and he is arrayed as accused as
per the FIR. It is alleged that the accused running the prostitution
business by trafficking the girls and induced them to indulge in
prostitution business for wrongful gain within the limits of
respondent police station. Hence, the petitioner has committed
the offences as alleged against him.
8.The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the
offences alleged against him and he has not committed any such
offences. but, as submitted by the learned Prosecutor, the
respondent police after completion of investigation submitted
charge sheet against the petitioner , and hence, at this stage, this
court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner is innocent
of the offences alleged.
9. It is pertinent to note that even for the sake of argument, it
is accepted that there is prima facie case against the petitioner for
the offences punishable U/s.4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act, 1956 and
Sec.370, the said offences are not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. Though the offence U/s.370 of IPC is nonbailable, it is triable by this Court.
10.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of bail
is discretionary power of the Court and every case should be
considered on the basis of facts of each case. The point for
consideration before the Court, whether the petitioner who is
absconding, due to which warrant is pending against him is entitle
for relief U/s.438 of Cr.P.C., The Learned Public Prosecutor, who
4
Crl.Misc.No.565/2023
has filed detailed objections submitted during the course of her
arguments that the petitioner is absconding from the date of
registration of the case and has filed this petition to avoid NBW
issued against him by the trial Court.
11.I have perused the averments made in the petition,
F.I.R. and other material produced on record. It is found that the
criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offence
punishable U/s.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of ITP Act and Sec.370 of IPC. It
is pertinent to note that in the instant case the petitioner is
absconding and making himself unavailable for trial since 2021,
for a period of more than 2 years. It is equally important to note
that when a charge sheet is filed against him in CC
No.11361/2021 pending before XXXVII ACMM, Bangalore, on
18.1.2023 the present petitioner has filed this petition in
anticipation of his arrest by the respondent police on the warrant
issued by the said Court.

More over the petitioner has been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl, Misc., No.5557/2020
dated 5.10.2020, but again the present petition has been filed. T hese
facts makes it clear that the petitioner has remained absconding
without facing the trial for more than two years and when an
warrant has been issued against him on the charge sheet filed in
CC No.11361/2021 on 11.05.2021, has moved this petition
anticipating his arrest on the warrant issued by the jurisdictional
court.

The petitioner2 having full knowledge of the case
intentionally avoiding the execution of warrant issued by the
jurisdictional Court, has moved this petition without any valid
reason.

In the petition no valid ground are made out on what
reason he remained absconding and was not available for trial in
CC No.11361/2021.

It is found that the petitioner instead of
5
Crl.Misc.No.565/2023
appearing before the jurisdictional Court has filed this petition
seeking anticipatory bail on the warrant issued by the
jurisdictional court.

As rightly objected and contended by the
prosecution it is found that again if the petitioner, he will not be
available for trial. The contention of petitioner granted bail that he
is under apprehension of arrest by the respondent police would
not arise at all, since the respondent police are on duty bound to
arrest the petitioner against whom the charge sheet in CC
No.11361/2021 is registered and NBW is issued against the
petitioner. The remedy is always available for the petitioner is to
appear and surrender before the trial Court, against whom the
warrant is pending and face the trial.

Non-appearance of the
petitioner causes hindrance in disposing of the pending criminal
case and is a hurdle on the speedy disposal of the case. Under
these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this is not a
fit case to exercise the discretion and allow the petition and grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
12.At this stage, it is wise to refer the principles relating to
granting anticipatory bail stated in Criminal Appeal No.1209/2021
Prem Shankar Prasad V. The state of Bihar and Anr., the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has clearly held that in case of accused
absconding, they have to surrender before the concerned trial
Court, and pray for regular bail, but they are not entitle for any
relief of anticipatory bail. The Apex Court has also held in the
judgment in the case of Lavesh V. State(NCT of Delhi) in
paragraph No.12 had held as under:-
“12.From these materials and information, it is clear that
the present appellant was not available for interrogation
and investigation and was declared as “absconder”.

6
Crl.Misc.No.565/2023
Normally, when the accused is “absconding” and declared
as a “proclaimed offender”, there is no question of
granting anticipatory bail.

We reiterate that when a
person against whom warrant had been issued and is
absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid
execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed
offender in terms of Sec.82 of the Code he is not entitle to
the relief of anticipatory bail”.
By applying the dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the present case also in CC No.11361/2021 at
XXXVII ACMM, Bengaluru, has issued process against the
present petitioner who is absconding, and the said case is still
pending.

Absolutely there is no any ground made out by the
petitioner to grant bail to him as sought for in the petition. Hence,
this bail petition does not merit consideration on the facts of the
case and also in law. Considering the gravity and seriousness of
the offences alleged against him the petitioner is not entitled for
the relief as sought.

Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the
negative.
13. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point
No.1, this court pass the following:ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.438 of
Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected
by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 7th day of February, 2023)
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

7
Crl.Misc.No.565/2023
Order pronounced in the open court
vide its separate order
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.438
of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Manjunatha)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.

8
Crl.Misc.No.565/2023