Ramajan S/O Badshah Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2321 Kant

                             1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 22 N D DAY OF JUNE 2021
                          BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100123/2021

   BETWEEN:

   RAMAJAN S/O: BA DSHAH NADAF ,
   AGE: 55 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
   R/O: HOUS E NO.5,
   MADAKI MASTI AREA,
   NEAR HONDA SHOWROOM,
   TQ & DIST: SOLA PUR.
   MAHARASHTRA-413001.
                                          ...A PPELLANT

   (BY SRI.P.P.HITTA LAMANI, ADVOCAT E)

   AND:

   1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
          THROUGH MUDHOL POLI CE STATION,
          NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLI C PROS ECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
          BENCH AT DHARW AD-580001.

   2.     DURGAVVA SATYA PPA PUJARI ,
          AGE: 47 YEARS , OCC: HOUS EHOLD WORK,
          R/O: BARA GI, TQ: MUDHOL,
          DIST: BAGALK OT-587313.
                                       ... RES PONDENTS


   (BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R-1
     RES PONDENT N O.2 - SERVED)
                              2




      THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL IS FILED U/S 14(A)( 2)
OF SC/ST (POA) ACT., PRAYING T O SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.04.2021 IN CASE NO.73/ 2020,
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BA GALKOT, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, BY
GRANTING REGULAR BAIL TO THE APPELLANT IN
MUDHOHL      P.S . CRIME  N O.156/2012  FOR    THE
OFFENCES PUNIS HABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324,
354, 307, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, S ECTION
3(1)( x)(xi) AND 3(2)( v) OF S C/ST (POA) A CT,
PENDING ON THE FILE II ADD L. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BA GALKOT I N SPECIAL CAS E
NO.73/ 2020.

     THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, T HE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:


                      JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the order dated

05.04.2021 passed in Spl.Case.No.73/2020 by

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot,

rejecting the bail application sought by

appellant in Crime No.156/2012 of Mudhol

Police Station, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 307,

504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(xi)

and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the

present appeal is filed.

2. The case has been registered against

appellant-accused No.1 and two others in

Mudhol P.S., Crime No.156/2012 for offences

punishable for the aforesaid offences and it

was pending in Spl.Case No.65/2012 on the file

of the Principal District and Sessions/Special

Judge, Bagalkot. The appellant was granted

bail by order dated 31.08.2012 and he has

been released on bail after executing bond and

furnishing surety on the same day. As the

accused No.1, who is appellant herein did not

attend the Court on 21.01.2015, NBW came to

be issued against him. In the mean time, the

case came to be transferred to II Addl. District

Judge on 30.10.2015. The notice to surety of

accused No.1 was issued and surety appeared

and paid the bond amount and he has been

discharged from his obligation. NBW issued

against the appellant-accused No.1 unexecuted

and therefore case against him is ordered to be

split-up on 23.11.2016. The split-up charge

sheet has been filed on 21.10.2020 and case is

registered against the appellant-accused No.1

in Spl.Case No.73/2020. The appellant-accused

No.1 came to be produced by executing NBW

on 26.03.2021 in Spl.Case No.73/2020 and he

has been remanded to judicial custody. The

appellant-accused No.1 has filed bail

application and the same came to be rejected

by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Bagalkot, by order dated 05.04.2021. The

appellant-accused No.1 has challenged the said

order in this appeal.

3. Though notice issued to complainant-

respondent No.2 has been served on him and

he remained unrepresented.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing

for the appellant and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-

State.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant

would contend that the appellant met with an

accident and he was under treatment and

subsequently he was diagnosed with

hypertensive heart disease and liver disease

and he was taking medical treatment.

Therefore,        he   could     not     appear    before        the

Court.          He     would           contend         that      the

Sessions/Special Judge has not considered all

these aspects. He would contend that the

appellant is ready to be present on all the

dates of hearing and cooperate in speedy

disposal of the case. With this he prayed to

allow the appeal and grant bail.

6. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader contends that appellant

remained absent for long eight years and the

explanation offered by the appellant is not

sufficient. The bail application of the appellant

came to be rejected by the Special Judge on

the ground that the appellant is resident of

Solapur in Maharashtra State and if he is

released on bail, he will abscond and it will

cause the hindrance in trial of the case. He

further contends that the Special Court has

rightly rejected the bail application of the

appellant and the impugned order does not call

for any interference.

7. Having regard to the submission

made by the learned counsel for the appellants

and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.2, this Court has

gone through the records.

8. The accused-appellant No.1 was

granted bail by order dated 31.08.2012 and he

has been released on the same day.

Subsequently, he appeared before the Court

for some period and he remained absent and

NBW came to be issued against him on

21.01.2015, with notice to surety. The surety

of the appellant has paid the bond amount and

he has been discharged by order dated

23.11.2016. The case against the appellant-

accused No.1 came to be split-up by order

dated 23.11.2016. After nearly four years, the

split-up charge sheet has been filed and case

came to be registered against the appellant on

21.10.2020 in Spl. Case No.73/2021. Since

26.03.2021 he is in judicial custody. The

medical reports produced will reveal that the

appellant met with an accident and he

sustained nasal bone fracture and he was in

rest in the year 2016. Subsequently, he was

diagnosed with hypertensive heart disease and

liver disease and he was taking medical

treatment. The appellant-accused No.1 has

sufficiently explained reasons for his non

appearance before the Court. The Special

Judge dismissed the bail application on the

ground that the appellant is resident of

Solapur, Maharashtra State and it is difficult to

secure his presence. Merely, because the

appellant is resident of another state is not a

ground to reject the bail application. The said

view is supported by the decision of this Court

in the case of Harjeet Chandok @ Harjeet

Singh Chandor and Others Vs. The State of

Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.3028/2017

decided on 03.05.2019. Therefore, the

approach of the Special Judge in rejecting the

bail application is not proper. As the appellant

has undertaken to abide by the conditions to

be imposed, he is entitled for grant of bail.

Hence, the impugned order requires to be set

aside. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The order dated

05.04.2021 passed in Spl.Case.No.73/2020 by

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot,

is set aside. Consequently, the appeal filed by

the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is

allowed. The appellants/accused No.1 is

ordered to be released on bail in connection

with Crime No.156/2012 of Mudhol Police

Station with the following conditions:

i. The appellant/accused No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

ii. The appellant shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing unless exempted and cooperate in speedy disposal of the case.

iii. The appellant shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RM