K. SOMASEKHAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 379, 411 r/w 34 and 35 of IPC in C.C. No. 461/2011. After filing the charge-sheet, the same has been renumbered as Spl. C.C. No. 6/2014 by CBI police. The petitioner submitted that he had filed a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., the same was allowed and bail was granted by order dated 27.11.2014. When he has transmitted the copy to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, an endorsement dated 1.12.2014 was issued stating that there are body warrant orders against the petitioner issued in other cases namely, Spl. C.C. Nos. 36/2014, 37/2014 and 14/2014. Hence, the benefit of bail order was denied for the said reasons. The same has been challenged in this habeas corpus petition.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that after examining the cases referred at Annexure-E dated 29.11.2014/01.12.2014 issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, there are no such body warrants have been issued in the said cases. On the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, he made an application for recalling the body warrants and the said cases have been adjourned to next date without assigning any reasons. Further, the learned Senior Counsel submits that when a bail order is granted in one criminal case, same cannot be deprived by referring the order passed under Sections 267 and 269 of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, learned counsel has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Muthuramalingam v. State of Coimbatore and others,2010 2 MWN(Cri) 302 (DB) and another judgment in the case of Ram Dass Ram v. State of Bihar and another, 1987 AIR(SC) 1333 The bail granted in criminal case cannot be deprived unless he is involved in any other criminal case and in case it is deprived, it violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. P.T. warrant issued under Section 269 of Cr.P.C. sine-qua-non for consideration of benefit of the bail granted to the petitioner. In the circumstances, endorsement issued by the Superintendent, Central Prison, is without authority of law and non application of mind and misuse of exercise of power. Accordingly, he submits to allow this petition.

(3.) Sri. R. Devdas, learned Government Advocate, submits to dismiss this petition. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge for cancellation of the PT warrant issued. In the circumstances, the same cannot be re-considered in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for habeas corpus. In support of his submission, learned Government Advocate referred judgment in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni and another v. Union of India and others, 2002 2 SCC 210 and referred paragraph - 57 and submitted, in similar cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "We do not agree with the proposition that an accused being involved in a large number of criminal cases in different parts of the country if is not able to be released from custody even on getting bail orders in some cases, that itself would tantamount to violation of the right of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution." It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petition has to be rejected, since the CBI has not made party to verify as to whether he is involved in any other criminal cases and all these cases are foisted by the CBI against the petitioner. In the circumstances, they are the necessary parties. In respect of the said submission, what has been examined by us is that the CBI is not arrayed as party.