Ummer vs The State
2023 Latest Caselaw 1563 Kant

                                                      -1-
                                                             CRL.P No. 1114 of 2023




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

                                                    BEFORE
                                  THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
                                  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1114 OF 2023

                      BETWEEN:

                      UMMER S/O ABBAS
                      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
                      R/AT CHANDRA NAGAR
                      PADUR/MADUR VILLAGE
                      KAUP TALUK,
                      UDUPI DISTRICT-576101
                                                                         ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN.,ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      THE STATE
                      BY SHIRVA POLICE STATION
                      UDUPI DISTRICT
                      REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                      AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
                      BANGALORE-560 001.
Digitally signed by
CHANDANA B M                                                           ...RESPONDENT
Location: High        (BY SRI. H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)
Court of Karnataka


                             THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
                      PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE CR.NO.5/2012 OF SHIRVA P.S., UDUPI FOR
                      THE OFFENCE P/U/S.364-A AND 384 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON
                      THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI
                      DISTRICT, UDUPI

                             THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
                      COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
                                          CRL.P No. 1114 of 2023




                              ORDER

The petitioner-accused No.8 is before this Court seeking

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.5/2012 of

Kapu Police Station, Udupi, pending in S.C.No.64/2022 on the file

of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 364(A), 384 r/w Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first

information lodged by the informant Smt.Thahira.

2. Heard Smt.Haleema Anseen, learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on

record.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is arrayed as accused No.8. He is innocent and has not

committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated

in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on

12.12.2022 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is submitted

that initially the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.8 in the FIR,

however, he was not charge sheeted even though two additional

charge sheets were filed and while filing third additional charge

CRL.P No. 1114 of 2023

sheet , he is arrayed as accused No.8. Therefore, the petitioner

approached the learned Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory

bail in Crl.Misc.No.298/2019, which came to be allowed vide order

dated 23.12.2019. However, when the petitioner had gone to the

police station, the original records were not found and therefore, he

could not comply with the conditions imposed while granting

anticipatory bail. However, on 24.09.2019, accused Nos. 2, 4, 5

and 7 were acquitted by the trial court in S.C.No.26/2012. A split

up charge sheet was filed and the matter is now pending in

S.C.No.64/2022. There is absolutely no material against the

petitioner to constitute any of the offences alleged. He is not

required for further investigation. He is the permanent resident of

the address mentioned in the cause to the petition and is ready and

willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by

this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made

against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even

though, he is arrayed as accused No.8, he is never appeared

before the Investigating Officer. A split up charge sheet was filed

CRL.P No. 1114 of 2023

against him and the matter was treated as long pending case. In

the meanwhile, accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 7 were acquitted by the

trial court in S.C.No.26/2012. Thereafter, the petitioner has sought

for anticipatory bail, which was granted vide order dated

23.12.2019, but however, he has not complied with any of the

conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner was arrested on

12.12.2022 and the matter is pending before the trial court in

S.C.No.64/2022. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is no

chance of securing his presence before the trial court and it will

hamper the trial. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my

consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"

My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the

following:

REASONS

6. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.8 for the above

said offence. Admittedly, a split up charge sheet was filed against

CRL.P No. 1114 of 2023

him. The original case is S.C.No.26/2012 and some of the co-

accused were acquitted vide judgment dated 24.09.2019.

Thereafter, the petitioner applied for anticipatory bail and the trial

court granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions. Admittedly,

the petitioner has not complied with any of those conditions. The

reasons assigned for not complying with the conditions imposed

while granting anticipatory bail is not convincing. Later, he was

apprehended on 12.12.2022 and now the matter is pending in

S.C.No.64/2022, which is split up case from the original sessions

case. The incident had taken place on 01.07.2011 and the

complaint came to be lodged on 15.01.2012; a decade had already

lapsed in securing the presence of the petitioner. Considering the

conduct and nature of the offences, I am of the opinion that the

petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.

7. The petition is devoid of merits and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.1/2023 do not

survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE SRL