JOY MILTON Vs. STATE BY BASAVANAHALLI POLICE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was earlier granted with bail in Crime No.132/2016. Later registered as S.C. No.34/2018 for the offence under Section 364-A , 395 , 386 , 342 , 324 , 506 , 120B read with Section 149 of IPC, which is pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru vide order dated 15.11.2016 by the Committal Court and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Before the Sessions Court the accused petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.7 appeared and enlarged on bail after furnishing the surety. Thereafter, the accused on various occasions appeared before the Court. On one or two occasions he remained absent and particularly the accused remained absent on 17.01.2018 and a petition was filed for exemption. That was allowed and thereafter he appeared on 11.02.2019. Again he remained absent on 25.02.2019, exemption petition was filed and allowed. On 11.03.2019 he again appeared. On 26.03.2019 he absented himself. Exemption petition was filed and it was allowed. Again on 9.4.2019 he was present. On 4.5.2019 he remained absent. Exemption petition was filed and it was allowed. On 30.05.2019 he was present. On 7.6.2019 also he remained absent. Exemption petition filed and it was allowed. On 26.6.2019 he was present before the Court. On 9.7.2019 he remained absent and exemption petition filed and the same was allowed. Again on 22.7.2019 he was present. On 5.8.2019 he remained absent. Exemption petition filed and the same was allowed. On 19.8.2019 he was present, but on 27.8.2019 he remained absent. Exemption petition was filed and the same was allowed. On 13.09.2019 he was present. On 27.09.2019 he remained absent. Exemption petition was filed and allowed and on that day a direction was issued to the accused to be present on the next date of hearing without bail. But on 10.10.2019 he remained absent. Therefore, the exemption application was rejected and NBW was issued against this petitioner. On 15.10.2019 an application was moved for recalling of the warrant by accused No.9 and considering the said application the same was allowed on cost of Rs.1,000/-. On 18.10.2019 in fact accused No.7 the petitioner also voluntarily surrendered, filed application for recalling and the same was rejected. Thereafter, he filed bail petition under Section 439 and the same also came to be rejected by the trial Court vide orders dated 28.10.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

(2.) On careful perusal of the entire order sheet though accused absented himself on several occasions, but it shows that he also present on various occasions and exemption application was filed on the date on which he remained absent and the Court has allowed the said applications. That shows that considering the grounds urged before the Court satisfying itself the Court has exempted the presence on those occasions and the Court cannot find fault with that. The another important point is that accused No.9 who also absented on various occasions, has voluntarily surrendered and his application for recalling was allowed, but the similar application field by the petitioner was rejected, but no sufficient reasons have been assigned by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the bail petition filed by the petitioner explaining all the reasons as to why on the particular date he remained absent, but inspite of that the trial Court has rejected the said bail petition without considering that he was appeared before the Court on various occasions. Under the above said facts and circumstances, in my opinion, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on similar conditions as imposed upon accused No.9. Hence the following order.