Deepu @ Deepak K M vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 9495 Kant

                           1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.835 OF 2022


BETWEEN:

DEEPU @ DEEPAK K.M.
S/O KRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT BACK SIDE OF
MUTHARAYASWAMY TEMPLE,
RAMANAGARA JOAIN ROAD,
RAMANAGARA
DISTRICT - 562 345.
                                           ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS V., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY KANAKAPURA TOWN
      POLICE STATION,
      REP. BY
      HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.    SMT. GIRIJAMMA
      W/O R.T. RAJGOPAL,
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
      R/AT BEHIND GIRISH
      KALYANA MANTAPA,
      NIRVANESWARANAGAR,
      NATIVE: P. RAMPURA VILLAGE,
                              2

     KASABA HOBLI,
     KANAKAPURA TALUK - 562 345.
                                              RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R-1;)
    R-2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) SC/ ST
(POA) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND GRANT
REGULAR BAIL AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON BAIL IN
SPL. C. NO.9/2019 REGISTERED IN PURSUANCE TO CRIME
NO.163/2022 OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR AN OFFENCE
P/U/S 302, 120-B AND 114 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.


     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/ PHYSICAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING;

                        JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned

HCGP for respondent-1/ State and perused the material on

record.

2. Respondent No.2 is served, but there is no

representation.

3. The appellant/ accused No.3 has preferred this

appeal praying to set aside the impugned order dated

02.03.2022 passed by the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Ramanagara in Crl. Misc. No.146/2022 and to enlarge him on

bail.

4. Chargesheet has been filed against accused Nos.1

to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 114

r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (Prevention

of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

5. The appellant along with accused Nos.1 and 2 is

alleged to have committed the murder of one Rajgopal on

12.11.2018 between 6.45 to 7.15 p.m by assaulting him with

chopper and knife.

6. A Co-ordinate Bench, in Crl.P. No.6659/2020 vide

order dated 26.11.2020 enlarged the appellant/ accused No.3

on bail imposing conditions. Since the appellant remained

absent before the trial Court, NBW was issued and in

pursuant to the same, the appellant appeared before the trial

Court. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the petition filed

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this appeal.

7. This Court was pleased to enlarge the appellant

on bail on 26.11.2020 in Crl.P No.6659/2020. The ordersheet

maintained by the trial Court would disclose that, the

appellant was released on bail on 15.01.2021. Subsequently,

he was appearing before the trial Court. On 29.06.2021, the

learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that he

has given NOC to appellant/ accused No.3 to engage any

other counsel. Hence, summons was issued to the appellant.

Thereafter, on 30.07.2021 another advocate filed vakalath for

him. The ordersheet would further disclose that on

14.09.2021 appellant was absent and an exemption petition

was filed on his behalf, which was allowed. Subsequently, on

27.10.2021 once again he remained absent and exemption

petition filed on his behalf was allowed. Later on 19.11.2021,

since he was absent and there was no representation, NBW

was issued which was recalled on 25.11.2021. Again on

09.12.2021 since the appellant was absent, NBW was issued

and later he was taken into custody on 06.01.2022.

8. This Court while enlarging the appellant on bail

has imposed certain conditions including that he shall

regularly attend the trial Court, unless exempted for genuine

reasons. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellant that appellant was taking care of his pregnant wife

in the hospital, as she was having health complications. He

submits that non-appearance of the appellant before the trial

Court was not intentional, but for bonafide reasons.

9. I have perused the entire ordersheet. Keeping in

view the submission made by the learned counsel that

henceforth appellant will regularly appear before the trial

Court and also considering that the appellant was already

enlarged on bail by this Court, it is appropriate in the interest

of justice to allow the appeal, by imposing necessary

conditions.

Hence, the following,

ORDER

Appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the

Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar

in Crl. Mics. No.146/2022 is hereby set aside.

The appellant/ accused is ordered to be released on bail

on the same terms and conditions imposed by this Court

while enlarging him on bail vide order dated 26.11.2020 in

Crl.P. No.6659/2020.

The appellant shall furnish fresh surety and shall comply

with other conditions.

It is made clear that no further indulgence shall be

shown to the appellant.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LL