Azmal Ujjody Khader vs State By Ullal Police Station
2022 Latest Caselaw 3595 Kant

                                 1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2022

                            BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

          CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9077/2021

BETWEEN:

Azmal Ujjody Khader
S/o Abdul Khader,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.9 - 43/2,
Bandikotya, Ullal,
Mangalore Taluk,
D.K - 575 020.                                 ...Petitioner

(By Sri. Rajesh Rai, Advocate for
Sri Naik Venkatesh Ishwar, Advocate)

AND:

State by Ullal Police Station,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore - 560 001.                        ... Respondent

(By Sri. S. Vishwa Murthy, HCGP)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.132/2000 of Ullal Police Station, Mangaluru for the
offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302, 109,
120-B, 176 and 212 read with Section 149 of IPC, Pending on
                               2




the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, D.K.
Mangaluru.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

Heard Sri. Rajesh Rai on behalf of Sri. Naik Venkatesh

Ishwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Viswa

Murthy, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

2. Present petition is filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C., seeking grant of bail. The petitioner was charge

sheeted in Cr. No.132/2000. However, during the trial, since

he was not available, a split up charge sheet came to be

filed and original case in S.C.No.77/2001 ended in an

acquittal. Recently, the petitioner has been apprehended by

the investigation agency and now, he is now facing trial in

S.C.No.36/2002 on the file of Prl. District and Session Judge,

D.K., Mangaluru.

3. The effort made by the petitioner to seek the

grant of bail is turned down by the learned Prl. District and

Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru by order dated 21.09.2021.

While, so turning down the request made by the petitioner,

conduct of the petitioner has been focused upon by the

learned trial Judge stating that he was not available for the

trial all along and thereby, the apprehension expressed by

the prosecution stands established by the conduct of the very

accused himself. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner has

approached this Court for grant of bail.

4. Sri. Rajesh Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently contended that since the main accused persons

have been acquitted by a considered order and not preferred

any appeal against the acquittal judgment, the present

petitioner would be entitled to grant of bail pending trial of

S.C.No.36/2002.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the bail

petition stating that the present petitioner has been shown as

absconding accused and the efforts made by the

investigation agency to secure his presence before the Court

was futile inasmuch as the case must be treated as long

pending case and evidence of the important eye witnesses

and the investigation agency have been recorded under the

Provisions of Section 299 of Cr.P.C. Under such

circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner would be

automatically entitle for an order of acquittal taking

advantage of the acquittal order passed in S.C.No.77/2001

and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. This Court perused the materials on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner jumped the bail and

was not available to the trial. Left with no alternative, the

learned trial Judge directed that, a split up charge sheet to

be filed in S.C.No.77/2001 as against the petitioner herein.

Accordingly, investigation agency filed a split up charge sheet

and the case was pending in S.C.No.36/2002.

8. Since the case would not brought to logical end

on account of non appearance of the petitioner on all these

days, this Court is of the considered opinion, that no case is

made out to exercise the special powers vested in the Court

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in admitting the request of the

petitioner to grant bail. Accordingly, this Court pass the

following:

ORDER

The bail petition is rejected.

However, having regard to the case is of the year 2000,

the trial judge is directed to expedite the trial and complete

the same as early as possible.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JS/-