PARAMESH V @ PSRMI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.178/2014 of Subramanyapura police station for the offences punishable under Sections 143 , 144 , 147 , 148 , 302 , 307 , 120-B read with Section 149 of IPC. After investigation and committal of the case, a case has been registered in S.C.No.1694/2018 on the file of the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65), Bengaluru.

(2.) The records disclose that earlier in Crl.P.No.7690/2014, vide order dated 06.01.2015, this Court has released the accused on bail exercising power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C after considering the merits of the case. Subsequently, it appears that the accused absented himself before the Sessions Court for the reason that he was also arrested in Crime No.126/2018 of Thalaghattapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 333 , 353 , 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act . In fact, he was released on bail in the said case also vide order dated 06.01.2020 in Crl.P.No.8604/2019 by this Court.

(3.) Thereafter, it appears that he made an application for grant of bail before the Sessions Court. However, the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the said bail petition on reconsidering the merits of the case, which is in my opinion was not warranted. The learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case once again to reject the bail petition when this Court exercising its power under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., having concurrent jurisdiction and considering the merits of the case, released the accused on bail. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have looked into the absence of the accused whether there was any genuine reason to absent himself from the Court. There is absolutely no whisper with regard to that aspect is concerned by the learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail petition.