A Bengaluru Sessions Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Manjunatha, also known as Manja or Kooli, who is the fifth accused in a serious criminal case involving kidnapping for ransom and wrongful confinement. The order, delivered by Sri S. Nataraj of the LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, underscores the legal principle that once a person has been granted regular bail and thereafter absconds, they cannot seek the protection of anticipatory bail a second time for the same case.

The petitioner, a 34-year-old resident of Bommanahalli, was seeking protection from arrest in connection with sessions case SC 1713/2019, which originated from a complaint filed by Sri Sukhdev M. Solanki at the Basaveshwaranagar Police Station.

The Allegations: Abduction and Extortion at a Poultry Farm

The prosecution’s case dates back to October 19, 2014. It is alleged that Manjunatha, along with four other associates, acted with a common intention to illegally extort money from the complainant. At approximately 8:30 p.m. that evening, the group allegedly abducted the complainant in a Tata Etios car and transported him to Sondekoppa Village in Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.

The victim was reportedly confined in a poultry farm, where he was threatened and forced to arrange for a payment of Rs. 10 lakhs. The charge sheet indicates that the accused successfully collected Rs. 2,28,000 from the victim through these coercive tactics. Following the investigation, the police filed charges under Sections 364(A) (kidnapping for ransom) and 342 (wrongful confinement) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Procedural History and Absconsion

The legal journey of the petitioner in this case has been complex. In August 2015, Manjunatha successfully obtained anticipatory bail from a sessions court. He subsequently appeared before the Magistrate Court, fulfilled the bail conditions, and was granted regular bail. When the case was committed to the District and Sessions Court for trial, it was numbered as SC 578/2018.

However, the petitioner thereafter failed to appear for trial. Despite the court taking coercive steps to secure his presence, he remained absent. Consequently, the court was forced to split the case against him, registering it as SC 1713/2019, forfeiting his bail bond, and issuing a non-bailable warrant for his arrest. In his latest petition, the accused claimed that he was innocent and that he had failed to appear only because court summons were never served upon him.

The Court’s Ruling on Maintainability

In evaluating the petition, the court focused on the maintainability of an anticipatory bail plea by a person who has already been granted regular bail but has since violated the terms of that release. The judge noted that the petitioner had already submitted to the jurisdiction of the court in 2015 and was fully aware of the proceedings.

The court relied heavily on a precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Ramesh V/s DY.RFO. In that ruling, the High Court held that once an accused has appeared before a trial court and a warrant is subsequently issued due to deliberate absence, the remedy of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is no longer available to that person.

The sessions judge observed that the petitioner’s absence was not a mere technicality but a deliberate act that led to the split-up of the case. By absconding after receiving regular bail, the petitioner forfeited his right to seek anticipatory protection against the resulting warrant.

Conclusion of the Court

The court held that given the heinous nature of the offense—kidnapping for ransom carries a potential sentence of death or life imprisonment—and the petitioner’s history of avoiding trial, there were no grounds to grant the requested relief. The judge emphasized that the legal process cannot be bypassed by those who fail to respect the conditions of their prior release.

Ultimately, the court answered the point of consideration in the negative and rejected the bail petition. Manjunatha now faces arrest under the existing warrant and must appear before the court through the standard legal channels for those in custody.