STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAMALINGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three petitions have been disposed of by a common order as they relate to Crime No.582/2016 registered by Maddur Police in relation to offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 323, 307, 302, 114 r/w 149 of IPC.

(2.) In Criminal Petition No.4986/2018 the State has come up with reasons that when accused No.2 applied for bail by filing Criminal Petition No.2545/2018, he suppressed the fact that the earlier bail petition i.e. Criminal Petition No.2219/2017 filed by him and other accused was dismissed so far as accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 were concerned. He misled this Court by stating in his Criminal Petition No.2545/2018 that no other petition had been filed by him and was pending. In fact, this Court, while deciding the Criminal Petition No.2219/2017, clearly came to the conclusion on perusing the charge sheet that prima facie materials were available against accused Nos.1 to 3. When he moved this Court again by filing Criminal Petition No.2545/2018, he did not seek bail under changed circumstances. Therefore, the suppression of denial of bail to accused No.2 is a matter to be considered for cancellation of bail.

(3.) Learned Government Pleader arguing for the State submitted that suppression of denial of bail to accused No.2 by this Court in Criminal Petition No.2219/2017 is to be considered seriously. According to the learned Government Pleader, Criminal Petition No.2219/2017 was filed after charge sheet was filed and therefore this Court after perusing the charge sheet came to conclusion that prima facie case existed against accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 for denial of bail. In the subsequent petition i.e. Criminal Petition No.2545/2018, accused No.2 did not show any changed circumstance. In fact, accused No.3 filed Criminal Petition No.5346/2018 and when it was pointed out to this Court that he was also one of the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.2219/2017 and that the bail had been denied to him, this Court dismissed that petition by clearly observing that when this Court disposed of Criminal Petition No.2545/2018, the fact of dismissal of Criminal Petition No.2219/2017 was not brought to the notice of this Court. This being the position, the learned Government Pleader argued that the bail granted to accused No.2 should be cancelled. According to her the act of suppression amounts to playing fraud on the Court. In support of her argument she placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others reported in, 1994 AIR(SC) 853.