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/-
