LAKSHMI T (BY MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP)
Location:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
NC: 2025:KHC:8845
DATE OF RESERVED THE ORDER : 27.02.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER : 28.02.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CAV ORDER
In this petition preferred under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023, petitioner/accused No.2 has prayed to enlarge him
on bail in a case pending before the Court of V Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in S.C.No.53/2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner,
learned Additional SPP for the State and perused the
material on record.
3. In respect of an incident of assault which took
place on 01.08.2017 at about 8.30 p.m., in Marehalli
Village, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya, a case in Crime
No.181/2017 came to be registered at Malavalli Rural
Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 4, for offences
punishable under Section 504, 341, 307, 324, 506 r/w 34
of IPC.
NC: 2025:KHC:8845
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that the accused
have assaulted the first informant - Purushothama, his
mother, sister and his father with iron rod, knife etc., with
an intention to commit murder and caused injuries to
them.
5. Charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 to
4 for offences punishable under Section 504, 341, 307,
324, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
6. The material on record would reveal that the
petitioner/accused No.2 was initially granted bail. After
committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charges
were framed in S.C.No.53/2019 and trial commenced
before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Mandya. PWs.1 to 6 were examined and at that time
present petitioner remained absent and inspite of issuance
of warrant, he could not be secured. Therefore, the case
was split-up and registered as S.C.No.53/2021. He was
then produced under warrant and remanded to J.C. He
was enlarged on bail on 05.10.2021. Again, when the
NC: 2025:KHC:8845
matter was at the stage of recording 313 Cr.P.C.,
statement of the accused, he remained absent and
therefore, once again the case was split-up. Warrant
issued against him was unexecuted and therefore, the trial
Court ordered for proclamation and attachment of movable
and immovable properties, however, there was no
property standing in the name of the accused. Even the
notice issued to the surety remained unserved. Petitioner
came to be arrested on 30.12.2024 and he has been
remanded to judicial custody.
7. The learned counsel for petitioner would
contend that the wife of petitioner was pregnant and she
delivered a baby in the month of September 2023. Due to
miscommunication with the Advocate who was
representing the petitioner and due to family issues,
petitioner could not appear before the trial Court. Now the
petitioner's child is 2 ½ years old and she is chronically ill
and therefore, petitioner's presence is very much required
to take care of his wife and minor child. He contended
NC: 2025:KHC:8845
that petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence, he is the
only bread earner of the family and therefore, be enlarged
on bail by imposing any conditions.
8. Petitioner was shown indulgence twice. When
the matter was posted for recording the statement of the
petitioner, under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he once again
absconded. Therefore, the case against him was split-up
and trial was held against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. The
matter pertains to the year 2017. The reasons assigned by
the petitioner for his absence before the trial Court for
such a long period, is not convincing and cannot be
accepted. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed
that when the accused was participating in the
proceedings, he was very well aware of the pending case
and nothing prevented him from appearing before the
Court at the initial stage and his conduct shows that he
has no respect to the legal process and violated the
conditions of bail.
NC: 2025:KHC:8845
9. Learned Additional SPP has submitted that the
main case held in S.C.No.53/2019 against accused Nos.1,
3 and 4 has been ended in conviction, vide judgment
dated 06.03.2024.
10. Petitioner was already shown indulgence twice
and granted bail. He has misused the liberty granted by
remaining absent before the trial Court, which resulted in
the case against him being split-up. Proclamation and
attachment warrant was also issued. Due to his
abscondance, the case against him could not be disposed
of by the trial Court, whereas the trial held against
accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 has been concluded. Further
leniency cannot be shown to the petitioner, as his conduct
does not entitle him the relief sought. Further, petitioner,
once again fleeing from justice cannot be ruled out.
Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
