Karnataka High Court
Shiva P S vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 July, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5158/2022
BETWEEN:
SHIVA P.S.,
S/O LATE PALAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O RENUKAPURA VILLAGE
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577 522. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE [THROUGH V.C.])
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THALAK POLICE STATION
CHALLAKERE CIRCLE
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577 522
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.184/2021 REGISTERED BY THALAK POLICE STATION,
2
CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.504, 302, 201 OF
IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking
regular bail of the petitioner/accused in respect of Crime
No.184/2021 registered by Thalak Police Station, Chitradurga
District, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 302 and
201 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is
that the petitioner/accused demanded an amount from his wife
to consume alcohol. He was addicted to bad vices. In spite of an
advice given to him, he continued the harassment both mentally
and physically to his wife. That on 31.10.2021, he demanded
money from his wife, when she refused, he abused her in a filthy
language and with an intention to take away her life, he
assaulted with his right hand, as a result, she fell down and lost
her breath. In order to screen the evidence, he pretended that
she has committed an offence. Hence, a case has been
registered, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for
the offences punishable under Sections 504, 302 and 201 of IPC.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the charge-sheet is filed after two days of
delay. An application is filed before the Trial Court invoking
Section 167 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has committed an error in
rejecting the application on the ground that there was a COVID
situation. Hence, the delay was quashed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.
Kasi v. State through the Inspector of Police, Samaynallur
Police Station, Madurai District reported in AIR 2020 SC
2921, wherein, the Apex Court in respect of Section 167(2) of
Cr.P.C., held that, Default bail - Indefeasible right to be released
- Non-submission of charge sheet within prescribed period -
Denial of bail on the ground that restrictions imposed during lock
down should not give right to accused to pray for grant of
default bail, is clearly erroneous and not in accordance with law
- Neither Supreme Court can be held to have eclipsed the time
prescribed under Section 167(2) nor restrictions imposed during
lock down shall operate as restriction on rights of accused,
protected by S.167(2) - Bail granted.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State would submit that though an
application is filed under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., before the
Trial Court, the same has not been challenged. The order has
been attained its finality, but approached this Court by filing an
application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Now, cannot contend
that the charge-sheet was not filed within the time. Hence, the
petitioner is not entitled for bail.
7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on
perusal of the material available on record, the prosecution also
not disputes the fact that the charge-sheet was filed after expiry
of 90 days i.e., there was a delay of 2 days in filing the charge-
sheet. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State would vehemently contend that the order has
been attained its finality. The said contention cannot be accepted
for the reason that the statute itself has given the right to
accused to invoke Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. When admittedly,
no charge-sheet is filed within time and a right of the
petitioner/accused is indefeasible right and he has to be released
and the Trial Court has given the reasons that due to COVID,
charge-sheet could not be filed within time. The Apex Court in
the Judgment referred supra, says that, neither Supreme Court
can be held to have eclipsed the time prescribed under Section
167(2) nor restrictions imposed during lock down shall operate
as restriction on rights of accused, protected by Section 167(2)
of Cr.P.C., and granted bail. Taking into note of the principles
laid down in the judgment referred supra, and the right accrued
to the accused under the statute, it is a fit case to exercise the
powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain
conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the
prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER
The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the
petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in Crime
No.184/2021 registered by Thalak Police Station, Chitradurga
District, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 302 and
201 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute personal bond for
a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering
the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing
dates, unless exempted by the Court for any
genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Trial Court without prior permission of the
Court, till the case registered against him is
disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
cp*
