AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M G Uma, J
The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.1 of 2018 of Mulki Police Station, pending in SC No.9 of 2020 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at DK, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 332 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Section 179 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'MV Act'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Sheetal Algur.
Heard Sri Talha Ismail Bengre, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M Divakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.
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 ‘Affirmative’ for the following:
REASONS
Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. It is stated that initially, the petitioner was released on bail as per the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 28.10.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner has not appeared before the Trial Court for more than 1½ years. It is stated that he was apprehended in another case registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It is also stated that he is enlarged on bail in the said case. However, he is detained in custody after apprehending on 26.03.2024.
It is noticed that on merits, the petitioner is already granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge. In the chargesheet, the prosecution has cited 33 witnesses and it is stated that only two witnesses are examined till now. The examination of all the witnesses may take longer period of time. Therefore, I am of the opinion that another chance may be given to the petitioner to obey the conditions that would be imposed on him while enlarging on bail. It is made clear that, if the petitioner remains absent on two consecutive dates of hearing before the Trial Court, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail. Hence, I answer the above point in Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.1 of 2018 of Mulki Police Station, pending in SC No.9 of 2020 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge at DK, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:
a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.
b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.
If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above or if he remains absent for two consecutive dates of hearing, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.