PAPPU KUMAR GUPTHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

(2.) This is a successive bail petition. This Court in Crl.P.No.4404/2022 vide order dtd. 1/6/2022, rejected the bail petition on the ground that the petitioner was absconded from 2017 to 2022 after granting the bail and after five years, he was secured before the Trial Court. Thereafter, he had approached the Trial Court for bail on medial grounds. The Trial Court also granted the bail for a period of one month to take treatment considering the report and again extended the bail for a period of 20 days for the said reason and thereafter, he surrendered before the Court. Now the petitioner has approached this Court to grant the bail contending that the petitioner is in custody from last one and a half years and the case is rest upon the circumstantial evidence and this Court.

(3.) On earlier occasion, this Court directed the petitioner to produce the medial records with regard to the condition of the petitioner. Now, the counsel has filed a memo along with the medical documents wherein he relied upon the report dtd. 2/1/2023. The petitioner was released on 12/12/2022 but immediately after his release he did not go to the hospital and he went to the hospital after 20 days and Ultrasound Abdomen and Pelvis report also says that bilateral echogenic kidneys with loss of corticomedullary differentiation likely suggestive of Medical renal disease and no document is placed before the Court for having taken treatment subsequent of his release i.e., on 12/12/2022 and Trial Court also enlarged him on bail for a period of one month and also again extended the bail for a period of 20 days and thereafter he surrendered before the Court. This Court directed the counsel for the petitioner to produce the document except the report dtd. 2/1/2023 and also a letter issued by the doctor on 15/1/2023 for having taken treatment after his release on bail, but no material is placed. The counsel appearing for the State also submits that though bail was granted on medical ground no sufficient material is placed to show that the petitioner has taken the treatment immediately after his release on bail.