Arun Kumar @ Vandre vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3092 Kant

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1934 OF 2021

BETWEEN :

Arun Kumar @ Vandre
S/o. Late Siddiah
Aged about 30 years
R/at No.97, 3rd Cross,
Pragathi Pura, Near Banashankari Temple,
Kanakpura Main Road,
Bengaluru-560 078.
                                                  ...Petitioner
(By Sri. Chandrappa K.N, Advocate)

AND :

The State of Karnataka
By Jayanagara Police Station,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001.
                                               ... Respondent
(By Sri.K.S.Abhijith, HCGP)

      This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.p.c praying this court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.116/2014 (S.C.No.1178/2019) of Jayanagar Police
Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 302, 120B, 427 read with 34 of IPC.
                             2




     This Criminal petition coming on for orders, this
day, the court made the following:-


                         ORDER

The petitioner-accused No. 4 is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in

Crime No.116/2014 of Jayanagar Police Station initially

registered for the offences punishable under Sections

302, 120B, read with 34 of IPC and the charge sheet is

filed for the offences punishable under Sections 341,

302, 120B, 427 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code

(for short 'IPC') and pending in S.C.No.1178/2019

registered on the basis of the first information lodged by

the informant.

2. Heard Sri. Chandrappa K.N, learned Counsel

for the petitioner and Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned Counsel

for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed

on record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4. He has

not committed any offence as alleged. Initially he was

released on bail as per the order of this Court.

However, subsequently he could not appear before the

trial Court. In the meantime, accused Nos.1 and 2 were

acquitted by the trial Court in S.C.No.988/2014 vide

judgment dated 01.02.2017. The petitioner was

apprehended on 13.01.2020 and since then he is in

judicial custody. The trial is pending in

S.C.No.1178/2019 before the trial Court which is now

pending for hearing before charge. The petitioner is the

permanent resident of the address mentioned in the

cause title to the petition and he is ready and willing to

abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by

this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious

allegations made against the petitioner for having

committed the offence. He was enlarged on bail by this

Court, subject to conditions. But the petitioner is

absconding since 2016 and he was apprehended on

13.01.2020. If he is enlarged on bail, there is further

chances of his abscondence and trial before the trial

Court would hamper. Therefore, prays for dismissal of

the petition.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that

would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative'

for the following:

REASONS

6. On perusal of the material on record, it

discloses that serious allegations are made against the

petitioner-accused No.4 for having committed the

offence. Even though accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to

have been acquitted by the trial Court, the conduct of

the present petitioner, who remained absconding even

after obtaining conditional order of bail disentitles him

from getting released once again. The petitioner who is

in judicial custody may seek expeditious disposal of the

matter. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner is not

entitled for grant of bail at this stage as there is a

apprehension of he remaining absconding, which will

hamper the trial before the trial Court. Therefore, trial

Court is directed to expedite the matter and dispose of

the same at the earliest.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ag