SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Govindaraju B K vs State Of Karnataka on 27 April, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRL.P NO.2705 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

GOVINDARAJU B K
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
R/AT BAVAPURA VILLAGE
K.SATHYAVARA POST
SULIBELE HOBLI
HOSAKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 114
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI: H PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADV)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHANNARAYAPATNA POLICE STATION
VIJAYAPURA CIRCLE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001
… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI:S VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)
2

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.119/2017 OF
CHENNARAYAPATANA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
498A,304B,306 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in

connection with Cr.No.119/2017 registered by the

respondent-police for the offences punishable under Sections

498A, 304B read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

2. The V Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Devanahalli, had granted anticipatory bail for the petitioner by

allowing the petition numbered as Crl.Misc.No.15076/2018.

At that time, a condition was imposed on the petitioner

stating that, within 10 days from the date of order, he should

appear before the JMFC and move for regular bail. The

petitioner did not appear before the Magistrate and move for

regular bail. He gave a reason that, he was unwell from

10.03.2018 to 20.30.2018 for being not able to appear before

the Magistrate Court and apply for regular bail. Instead, he
3

filed another petition for anticipatory bail in

Crl.Misc.15136/2018 producing medical certificate showing

that he was unwell for about 10 days from 10.03.2018 to

20.03.2018. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the

medical certificate and rejected the application of anticipatory

bail. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court

again by filing this petition.

3. Heard the petitioner’s Counsel and the learned

High Court Government Pleader.

4. In my opinion, the petitioner did a mistake in

filing the second petition for anticipatory bail. It was just

enough, if he had approached the Sessions Court once again

seeking extension of time for obtaining regular bail. While I

find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions

Judge in rejecting the second petition for anticipatory bail, but

what needs to be stated is that the very imposition of

condition at the time of granting anticipatory bail directing the

accused to obtain regular bail is not correct. Once the

competent Court grants bail, whether regular or anticipatory it

shall remain in force till conclusion of the trial provided other
4

conditions of bail are not violated. In this view of the matter,

I come to the conclusion that condition No.1 imposed by the

learned Sessions judge in Crl.Misc.15076/2018 can be waived,

as it is opposed to law. The order granting anticipatory bail

on 06.03.2018 shall remain in force till trial is concluded, if

the petitioner does not violate other bail conditions. It is now

submitted that the charge sheet is filed and the petitioner is

arraigned as accused No.4. He has to execute a bond

assuring his regular appearance before the Court. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- and provide two sureties before the Trial Court.

He is also subjected to following conditions:

(i) He shall regularly appear before the Court; and

(ii) He shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper

with the evidence.

Sd/-

JUDGE
*bgn/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation