Crl.Misc. No.2960/2024 KABC010083682024 IN THE COURT OF THE LX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-61) : P R E S E N T : Sri Narashimsa M.V., B.Com., LL.B., LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2024. Crl.Misc.No. 2 960 /2024 PETITIONER/ Sri.Asif Khan S/o. Late Rasheed Khan, ACCUSED:- Aged about 51 years, R/at Banavasandara village, Chicknayaknahalli post, Turuvekere taluk, Tumkur District-572212. (Rep by Sri.Mohammed RafiAdvocate) -VS- RESPONDENT:- The State of Karnataka By: Kalasipalya Police Station, Bengaluru. (By Public Prosecutor)

ORDER

Petitioner/Accused in Cr.No.6/2023 of Kalasipalya Police Station, has filed this application under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., praying for anticipatory bail. He is alleged to have committed offences punishable U/s.406 and 427 of IPC. Crl.Misc. No.2960/2024

2. Brief facts and grounds urged in the petition are as

under:- That petitioner/accused has taken complainant’s vehicle Canter bearing Reg. No .KA-16-A-2846 and he has not returned the vehicle, the complainant has stated in complaint that he is doing job of driver of goods vehicle on hire basis and he has purchased the said vehicle bearing No KA-16-A-2846 from a person by name Inayath of Maruthi Nagar and he had transferred the vehicle in his name and he has entrusted the vehicle to accused to carry over the job of goods vehicle on hire and accused took the vehicle and continued the job for 2 month, thereafter since from one year without paying amount the accused is holding the vehicle in his custody and went away, the vehicle was usually parked at popular junction, but complainant noticed that vehicle has not been parked at that place, when complainant searched the accused by visiting his house he came to know that accused has vacated the house and he searched the vehicle but he did not find the vehicle, the accused has taken vehicle as complainant had said to him that he himself will continue job of driving vehicle, inspite of complainant’s search he was not able to find any information regarding accused as well as the vehicle, as such accused has committed an offence Crl.Misc. No.2960/2024 of criminal breach of trust and complainant has requested to find his vehicle.

3. The grounds urged in this petition are as under:-

The petitioner is absolutely innocent of alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated in above case, and he has got valid and good tenable defense. He is nowhere nexus to above crime, and he has not committed any offence as alleged by respondent police. There is no previous antecedents nor any pending case against him and he is permanently residing at above said address, so petitioner will not abscond or delay proceedings of this court. The respondent police is making hectic efforts to arrest petitioner he is apprehending his arrest, as such petitioner apprehends harassment, humiliation, torture and illegal detention by respondent police. The alleged offence is not punishable with extreme penalty of death or life imprisonment. He is permanent resident of above mentioned address, he is having very good reputation in society, having aged mother, he is sole bread earner to his entire family, he is having deep roots in society. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition. Crl.Misc. No.2960/2024

4. Leaned Public Prosecutor has filed objections to bail

application along with memo of instructions given by investigating officer. In objections, it is stated that averments made in bail application are false. Application is not maintainable. The grounds urged in bail application are imaginary. Hence, prayed for rejection of bail application.

5. Heard both sides.

6. The point that arises for my consideration is :

1. Whether bail application filed under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. by accused in Kalasipalya Police station Crime No.6/2013 (C.C.No.3060/2014) deserves to be allowed?

7. My finding to the above point is in the Negative, for the

following :- R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1:- Along with this application, certified copy of

order sheet of Kalasipalya Police Station in Cr.No.6/2013 (C.C.No.3060/2014), FIR, First Information, copy of Aadhar card of petitioner is filed. Crl.Misc. No.2960/2024

9. First information was lodged on 5.01.2013. Accused was

arrested on 26.03.2013, was produced before learned Magistrate, accused was remanded to J.C.. Bail application U/Sec.436 of Cr.P.C was filed. It was allowed vide Order dated.28.03.2013, cash surety of Rs.3,000/- was imposed. Other conditions were imposed, accused /petitioner was enlarged on bail, after completion of investigation on 03.01.2013 charge sheet was filed. In charge sheet it is specifically mentioned that accused/petitioner has been granted bail by Hon’ble 1st ACMM., Bangalore. Perusal of order sheet in C.C.No.3060/2014 reveals that on 18.10.2016 accused/petitioner was absent. NBW was issued, it remained unexecuted on 29.06.2018, bail bond and surety bond was cancelled. On 4.10.2019 cash surety amount was forfeited to state, NBW issued against accused/petitioner remained unexecuted. Learned Magistrate has fixed the next date of hearing as 20.05.2024

10. Aforesaid facts reveal that accused/petitioner was

granted bail U/Sec.437 of Cr.P.C on 28.03.2013. Due to issuance of NBW now petitioner/accused is seeking anticipatory bail. In this context it is necessary to refer to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka. In this context it is necessary to refer to the case of Crl.Misc. No.2960/2024 Mujahidulla and another Vs State of Karnataka reported in 2022 (3) KCCR 2410. The Hon'ble High Court in Para 5 of the said Judgment has held as under :- “Having heard the respective learned counsel, it is not in dispute that earlier the petitioners were granted bail and thereafter they appeared before the Trail court during the crime stage and after filing of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and summons was issued against the petitioners, but they did not appear before the Trial court. The order sheet reveals that the summons was not served against the petitioners and when the summons was not served, NBW was issued and having taken note of the said factual aspect of the case, it is appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the Trial court by filing the necessary application for recalling the warrant issued against the petitioners. The petition filed before this court under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable once the petitioners have been enlarged on bail. With these observations, the petition is disposed of”.

11. Ratio laid down in the above cited case, is clearly

applicable to the case on hand. Even in this case petitioner/accused was enlarged on bail earlier. He remained absent before learned Magistrate, it resulted in issuance of NBW. Now at this stage petitioner/accused cannot file application for Anticipatory bail. Hence, Crl.Misc. No.2960/2024 I answer above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R Anticipatory Bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Petitioner/accused is hereby rejected. Liberty is reserved to petitioner/ accused to eke out his remedies in accordance with law. (Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, after corrections, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2024). (NARASHIMSA.M.V.) LX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc. No.2960/2024