Krishna Murthy C K vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2687 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9434/2021

BETWEEN:

1.     KRISHNA MURTHY C.K.,
       S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
       R/AT CHAKKAALURU VILLAGE,
       MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 501.

2.     M.D.NAVEEN
       S/O. DEVARAJU,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
       R/AT MALAGALU VILLAGE,
       VIRUPAKSHIPURA HOBLI,
       CHANNAPATNA TALUK
       RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 501.        ... PETITIONERS

           (BY SRI A.N.RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE )

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MADDUR POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560 001.                        ... RESPONDENT

             (BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)
                                 2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.100/2014 OF MADDUR
POLICE STATION, MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCE ACT, 1908
IN C.C.NO.1969/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, MADDUR.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo dated

17.02.2022 stating that already proclamation is issued against

the petitioner by the learned Magistrate and the petition under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

2. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed as not

maintainable, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of LAVESH VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) reported in

(2012) 8 SCC 730, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph No.12

of the judgment has held as under:

"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as "absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a

"proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail."

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST