IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE:if"-«_;""._' DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2.0'10v ' BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. Ce<ur~«'1f1AR'Aswg:xi»iC$( CRIMINAL RETmON"N Oi.538S;'2o:io BETWEEN: it .' Manjunath S/o Hombegowda, Aged : 26 yers, Residing at ; 2: Hulangaia Post &_.Vi|ba4ge;,..';'. " _: Arkalgud Taiuk, B C V Hassan DistriC.t..__ _ "--I;,_ ' PETITIONER (By Sri C.N. Raju,'A%dv..)_.A' AND: it C C State'*of Ka rna't'aka.._ """" H by H_assVah_VRu.rva«:.PS,'V Repre-sented by. " ' ~~ __PubIic P-rAos--eCutor;;-. High Court of V_KarnTataka, 'z.Banga!Ore~560.009. RESPONDENT
AB’.*Rajassu bra hma nya Bhat, HCG P)
Crimina! Petition is fiied under seCtion~-482 of Code of
‘._=._CrimVina! Procedure praying to set aside the order dated
*-,4;11.201O on the fiie of the Additionaf Civi! Judge (3r.Dn.) &
VJV_tMf~’C 11 Court, Hassan in P.C.R. No.174/09.
iffy’
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this:’f”d:a”~/u,
the Court made the following. ._
ORDER ‘
This Criminal Petition is filed under’section’f48Zifo:’fi_Cod~e’
Criminal Procedure praying to set a1si__c!e__A.theb.’o’rder’~
4.11.2010 on the file of the AddViti”-og:n’al, Ci\}ii’–.J_u*dg_”e R(‘3-.i>rV.’Vlj’n’.’) & M’
JMFC II Court, Hassan in P.C:R,_
2. With the consent of-1’the’E’|earh_édA.’;~.§§_0’unsel for the
petitioner as well as:.the:VVl’searr’§§:ed Gofirernment Pleader,
this matter is heard V
3. The _prinsiary’fa.ct[s of_the”:case are as under:
,f’*.03,1»-‘…i5’eti,tri.orrve.r isV”VA’cCuseci No.3 in Crime No.174/2009 of
Hassan”i3.u”ral::’P.oli»iei..S’tation. He was granted anticipatory bail
this’C__orurtV.~1i’d:e.’order dated 21.6.2010 in Criminal Petition
–i%_l.E§ivo..2’8.67/20:0.5 Thereafter petitioner moved a regular bail
‘:~«’pet.ition.before the Court below and the Court below granted
. ‘re’gu;l’ar__E3ail vide order dated 21.8.2010.
3.2 The order sheet of the Court below
21.8.2010 the case was adjourned to
25.9.2010, again the case was adjourned
the Presiding Officer was on training. On30..1O.2V0–ii,0:,v”the
was adjourned to 2.11.2010.
and 2 were present and’::4″ACcuSéfiil_ and
Exemption Application No.3 was
allowed and the cas;e’iiia§:’ adjAou:’jned for final report.
That on 2.11.20i0 “Public Prosecutor has
fiied an basis of the said
application, Board and it was adjourned
to 4.11.2010, 4iV.’11..:20i-OV’A:ccused Nos.2 and 3 were absent
aipplicativorifév was filed. Accused No.1 was
abse’ni.t.”jA:s.sistant Public Prosecutor submitted that
Vc:”Acvcused No.3_had’:’.oibtained bail from this Court with a condition
“to-v’coo»perate”with the investigation and hence for this reason the
sheet was not filed. The Court heard both sides and
féxernptison application filed by iearned counsel for Accused No.3
VfVuVw’as:~”rejected. The trial Court issued non–bailable warrant
£4,/A
against Accused Nos.2 and 3 and the case was adjourne-_:ciV»i’
9.11.2010.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
That in case if the petitioner the
investigation, the prosecutiorrcan of bail.
Instead of adopting that the short cut
method to arrest thé the bars. The
order sheet of discloses that on
2.11.2010 the¢iase7y~.«a§Vlagigamdtg»iis.l1.2ou and then it was
advanced to sheet also reveals that on
4.11.2010 _si.nce p’et,it’iown.er/accused No.3 was not present, an
eréjeniptiori.i:ap.p:licfit5§>n’Hvvasdvfiled by the learned counsel for
Accused’ Court below rejected the said application
fl”a’rlrl Non.¢._bailable§’..–vvarrant was issued against Accused No.3.
“-l5.f7i*ieref.ore he”pVrays to set aside the order dated””4.11.2010.
§.*§itearned High Court Government Pieader submits that a
order may be passed.
6. From the records, it is clear that in the
case was posted on 2.11.2010. On that day, it,wa’s._a’djoLi_rned’i
to 5.1.2011 and then on the basis
filed by the prosecution, the case was’—taizen .5I!,’5oa’rd°}a’ni:lV’fi
adjourned to 4.11.2010. of.41.11;2o1c7: the
petitioner/Accused No.3 and e”>V<emption
application was filed by his fihrs._:Cou.rf_'..below rejected
the exemption that the
petitioner/Accused': Vilvicoioperated with the
investigation; """ learned counsel for the
petitioner, if not cooperated with the
investigation, agency is at liberty to file an
ap.pVl'i,catiVo'niifoirivca'nceilaVtion"of the bail. Though the case was
adjoiurned. it was advanced to 4.11.2010 and the
Ev.VTpetitioneAr,!,gXccu~sed4§'..~Nio.3 has no knowledge of the same. Such
case;petitioner/Accused No.3 couid not appear before
,:'"Cuour_tt–'below on 4.11.2010 and his counsel has filed
application. The learned Magistrate without
Viiafconsidering all these aspects, mechanicaily rejected the said
appiication. 'In my view, the order passed by the learned
€,./"
Magistrate on 4.11.2010 rejecting the exemption app:i’it:a’tiVo..rj_i
issuing non–bailable warrant against the petitione.r,//§§_ccuVsed
is not sustainable in law especially when theAca;sé._w’as=adj;.ourn.edf
to 5.1.2011 for appearance of thepetitioher/’accused: .214′!
that view of the matter, this Crin’ii’i1.ai’ Petition ‘g_VVis’V’:liatsle to be
dismissed.
7. Since the écdriminai”‘Peti:tio:n-fjhasl7 disposed of,
Misc.Cri.4685/2010does._’;no’t._};:.u_r*.£ive” for consideration and it is
accordingly di smi a’s:;;.Ah.av~i.r1g.__beco me nfru ctu ous.
8. In the r’es4uiit,, th.’e..’t’foliowing:
1. ‘”i”.hi»s:Cri_rninal.Peti*tion is allowed.
Exer’hptionVV.”apipligeation filed by the learned counsel for
‘J=’_».ccuse’ci– No.3 in the Court below requesting for exemption of
“of-V’A_ce1Jsed is ailowed.
order dated 4.11.2010 relating to issuance of Non»
bailablieliwarrant against petitioner/Accused No.3 is set aside.
sd/«
., Ifidge