1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8909 OF 2018
BETWEEN
Krishna Nayaka,
Son of Late Sakariya Nayaka @
Dhooma Nayaka,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at Bangala Doddi Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Anekal-Taluk-562106,
Bengaluru-Rural-District.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. C.N.Raju, Advocate for
Smt. K.Subbalakshmamma, Advocate)
AND
State by Anekal-Police Station
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560001.
…Respondent
(By Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.123/2007 of Anekal Police Station Bengaluru City for
the offence punishable under Section 304-B, 306 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 6 of D.P.Act.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following :
ORDER
Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. This is a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,
by the petitioner/accused No.1. He is facing trial in
relation to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B,
306 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
D.P.Act.
3. The petitioner has moved this Court on earlier
occasion by filing Crl.P.No.2157/2018 and it was dismissed
for non compliance of office objections.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner had been enlarged on bail by the Sessions
Court and because of he jumped the bail conditions, he
was arrested and has been in custody for the last two
years. He also submits that the other accused have
3
already been acquitted. For these reasons the petitioner be
released on bail by imposing stringent conditions.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader
opposes the bail petition by submitting that for about ten
years the petitioner had been absconded. This very much
shows that he has not co-operated with the trial Court in
completion of trial. There are no grounds to allow this
petition.
6. The order of the Sessions Court clearly
indicates that for ten years the petitioner had remained
absconded without appearing before the Court. He was
arrested on 03.02.2018. It is the duty of the
accused/petitioner who is enlarged on bail to appear
regularly before the Court to see that the trial is completed
at the earliest. There is no guarantee that he will appear
before the Court again if he is released on bail. Merely
because the other accused have been acquitted, it cannot
be a ground for granting bail to the petitioner. The
petitioner who is the main accused; I do not think that this
4
petition deserves to be allowed. Hence petition is
dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kmv*