Lakshmana vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 12871 Kant

                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 07th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                      BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

        CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9816 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

LAKSHMANA
S/O MUNITHIPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT C.D.HOSAKOTE
KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
PIN CODE-562106
NOW IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY.
                                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRABHAKARA T.C., ADVOCATE) (PH)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SULIBELE POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
                                     ... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP) (PH)
                                   2

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON THE BAIL IN CR.NO.83/2012 REGISTERED BY
SULIBELE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR
THE    OFFENCE    PUNISHABLE      UNDER   SECTIONS
114,143,147,148,120(b),302,506,109 R/W SECTION 149
OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC., HOSAKOTE IN C.C.NO.750/2013 AND ETC.,

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

                             ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section

439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on bail in Crime

No.83/2012 of Sulibele Police Station registered in C.C

No.750/2013 against the present petitioner for the

offences punishable under Sections 114, 143, 147, 148,

120(B), 302, 506, 109 r/w Section 149 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and

learned HCGP for State. Perused the records.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are

that on 25.08.2012 at about 12.00 p.m. the one

B.N.Prabhakar lodged a complaint by setting law in

motion. It is alleged that his brother Mohan was an

agriculturist as well as a real estate agent and on

25.08.2012 at 10.45 a.m he received a phone call from

one Vijaya a native of Siddlaghatta village regarding

murder of his brother by unknown persons. Immediately

he went to the spot and found that his vehicle was turned

turtle and the dead body of his brother was in driver seat

and his neck was slit. He received information that his

brother while moving in his car bearing registration No.

KA-37-MD-01 it was hit by a lorry and when it turned

turtle, the people gathered there and at that time the

persons who were in the lorry came there and slit the neck

of deceased and when the villagers were there, they were

also threatened. In this regard the complaint came to be

lodged.

4. The complaint was lodged in the year 2012 in

crime No.83/2012. Subsequently after completing the

Investigation it culminated in submission of the charge

sheet which came to be registered in original S.C No

59/2013. Since the present petitioner along with other

accused was absconding the case against him split up in

C.C No.750/2013 some of them were subsequently

arrested and the case against them was registered in S.C

No.203/2013 and subsequently the present petitioner was

apprehended and he was produced before the learned

magistrate and was remanded to judicial custody.

Meanwhile the other two original cases were committed to

Sessions Court in S.C No.59/2013 and S.C.No. 203/2013

and they were ended acquittal by judgment dated

22nd September 2020. The petitioner after his remand has

approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned

Sessions Judge has rejected his bail petition, on the

ground that he was absconding since last 9 years. Hence

the petitioner is before this Court.

5. Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident that the major allegations were made

against the accused Nos.1 to 5. The records further

disclose that accused Nos.1 to 12, 14, 21 to 23 were

acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. The judgment of

the learned Sessions Judge in S.C No.59/2013 and

203/2013 does disclose that PW 2 to 6 are the eye

witnesses but they did not support the case of the

prosecution. The present petitioner is also standing on the

same footing along with other accused including accused

No.12 who is also acquitted. No doubt he is absconding for

last 9-10 years and for that purpose he is already there in

custody for nearly 3 months.

6. However the denova trial is required to be

conducted against him now and looking to the already

recorded evidence, in my considered opinion there is no

impediment for admitting him on bail. However considering

his conduct in absconding for last 9-10 years stringent

conditions needs to imposed including cash security to be

secured from him and his absence shall end in forfeiture of

the cash security. Accordingly, the petition needs to be

allowed. As such I proceed to pass the following

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.83/2012 of Sulibele Police Station registered in C.C No.750/2013, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 114, 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 302, 506, 109 r/w Section 149 of IPC on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety along with cash security of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Court subject to following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless he is exempted by a specific order.

(v) In case petitioner remains absent on any one date of hearing without prior permission of the Court, the Cash security shall stand forfeited to the state.

SD/-

JUDGE

VS