ANANDKUMAR.J. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

(2.) The petitioner was granted with bail earliner in the Crl.P.No.4143/2013 vide order dated 02.08.2013 in connection with SC.No.1501/2012. But, the petitioner remained absent before the trial Court, after committal, for period of nearly eight months and he was secured through process by the Court and thereafter, he made an application for grant of bail. The trial Court after considering the merits of the case, dismissed the application. The approach of the trial Court is not proper because once this Court has granted the bail after considering the merits of the case, there was no necessity for the trial Court to go into the merits of the case once again. It has to ascertain what are the grounds for him to absent himself before the court and whether those grounds are sufficient to reject the bail or not. Instead of that, the trial Court has adopted indifferent approach for cancellation of the bail. The trial Court has not even discussed, what are all the chances available to the accused for abscond and tamper the prosecution witnesses etc.

(3.) Looking to the above stated facts and circumstances, as the witnesses have been examined and the petitioner undertakes that he would assist the case by regularly appearing before the Court. Therefore, in my opinion, by absenting himself before the trial Court, the petitioner has already paid penalty of having been in judicial custody for more than 3 - 1/2 years. Therefore, the petitioner-accused No.2 is entitled to be enlarged on bail with stringent conditions. Hence, the following: