1
Crl.Misc.No.3234/2024
KABC010091302024
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 9) AND HOLDING
CONCURRENT CHARGE OF
LXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH 70)
BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 15th day of April, 2024
PRESENT
Sri. Hareesha A., B.A.,LL.B,
XXVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 9)
and also holding concurrent charge of the court of
69th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH 70).
Crl.Misc.No.3234/2024
Petitioner:
Shivakumar S
s/o late Shivananjayya
aged about 36 years,
r/at No. 29, CID Quarters,
palace road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. P.R.Bhat, Advocate)
V/S
Respondent :
State of Karnataka by
HSR layout P.S, B`lore.
(Represented by Public Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.3234/2024
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED
U/SEC. 439 OF CR.P.C.
The petitioner/accused No.4 has filed this petition under
Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for his
release on bail in
Crime No. 640/2014 CC No.10542/2021
registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable
u/sec. 341, 323, 324, 307, 120(B), 107, 506 r/w 149
of Indian
Panel Code. The present petitioner is shown as accused No.3 in
the charge sheet.
2. The petitioner asserting false implication among other
grounds, and pledging adherence to any conditions that may be
imposed by this court upon release, sought for release on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor
in their
objection, contends that, there exists primafacie material on
record, sufficient to engender a reasonable belief in the
petitioner`s commission of
alleged offence. The petitioner,
having previously been granted bail, has failed to appear for
trial proceedings
thereafter.
The
petitioner
has evaded
authorities and has been declared a proclaimed offender,
3
Crl.Misc.No.3234/2024
having absconded for over a decade. In light of these
circumstances, the prosecution sought for the dismissal of the
petition.
4. I have heard the argument and perused the material
placed by the petitioner alongwith petition.
The point that
would arise for my determination is:
1. Whether the petitioner/accused No.4 has
made out any grounds to enlarge him on bail
u/sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.?
2. What order?
5. My answer is in the Negative for the following;
REASONS
6. POINT NO.1; The present petitioner was released on
bail in the earlier occasion and subsequently he was remained
absent and the case against this petitioner was ordered to be
split up and the SHO of the complainant police station was
directed to file separate charge sheet against present petitioner.
The proclamation was issued and the learned Magistrate made
all efforts to secure the presence of accused and the proceedings
4
Crl.Misc.No.3234/2024
was also initiated under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. At this
stage, the accused No. 4/petitioner was arrested by the
respondent police on execution of Non Bailable Warrant and
produced before the learned Magistrate on 30.1.2024,
since
then he is in judicial custody.
7.
The allegations against the present petitioner and
other accused entail an incident allege to be reported on
22.09.2014. It is alleged that the accused persons, with an
alleged intent to commit murder of the complainant, assembled
in
close
proximity
to
the
complainant’s
residence.
At
approximately 3:10 pm, when the complainant emerged from
his residence and proceeded to embark upon his vehicle bearing
Reg.No.KA 51 MA 361, it is purported that accused No. 3
demanded the complainant to disembark from the vehicle.
Subsequently, accused No. 4 to 6 purportedly encircled the
complainant, restraining his movements, while accused No. 3
purportedly inflicted a stab wound upon the complainant’s neck
using a knife. The accused No. 3 to 6 purportedly subjected the
complainant to assault by stones, thereby inflicting grievous
5
Crl.Misc.No.3234/2024
injuries upon him. Subsequent to the commission of the alleged
offence, the accused persons fled away from the scene aboard a
motorcycle
bearing
Registration
Number
KA02EJ5626.
Following the conclusion of the investigative process, a charge
sheet was filed against accused No. 1 and 2 on the 20.12.2014.
8. On perusal of the order sheet it appears that
subsequent to release on bail, the petitioner has failed to
appear before the learned Magistrate. Despite diligent efforts
made by the police to locate and apprehend the petitioner, these
endeavors proved futile. In light of the petitioner’s prolonged
absence spanning a decade, his conduct undermines the
suitability of exercising discretion to grant bail. A proclaimed
offender, particularly one who has flouted earlier bail
conditions and neglected to fulfill bond obligations, is not
entitled to release on bail again. Therefore, I constrained to
answer the point for consideration in Negative.
9. Point No.2: By considering the above over all reasons
this court proceed to pass the following;
6
Crl.Misc.No.3234/2024
ORDER
The bail application filed by the petitioner/ accused
No.4 u/sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I, transcript thereof is
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on
this the 15th day of April, 2024)
(Hareesha A.)
XXVII Addl. CC & SJ
holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge,Bangalore.
7
Crl.Misc.No.3234/2024
15.4.2024
Petitioner by PRB
Respondent by PP
for orders.
Order pronounced in open court, vide separate order.;
ORDER
The bail application filed by the petitioner /
accused No.4 u/sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.
(Hareesha A.)
XXVII Addl. CC & SJ
holding c/c of 69th Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge,Bangalore.