Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6873 OF 2026 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: KISHOR KUMAR @ KISHORE S/O SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.23, 1ST MAIN, B.K NAGAR, YASHWANTHPURA BANGALORE-560 071 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANKA. K., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YASHWANTHPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Digitally signed by BENGALURU - 560001. HEMALATHA …RESPONDENT J Location: (BY SRI.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (FILED U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.41/2019 OF YESHWANTHPURA POLICE STATION PERTAINING TO S.C NO.1763/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-67) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 399 AND 402 OF THE IPC. -2-
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth referred to as 'BNSS') for his release on bail in S.C.No.1763/2019 pending trial before LXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-67), for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC').
2. Based on information furnished by the respondent,
a case in Crime No.0041/2019 was registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 399, 402 of IPC, 1860. The petitioner was arraigned as accused No.4. The accused No.4 was granted anticipatory bail on 26.02.2019. The petitioner was enlarged on bail and after his release, he sought time to furnish surety. However, the petitioner/accused No.4 failed to comply with the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, he failed to appear before the Court
-3-
and a non-bailable warrant (henceforth referred to as 'NBW') was issued against him. The accused No.4 failed to furnish surety even after the Court recalled the non-bailable warrant. The petitioner thereafter remained absent, forcing the trial Court to issue a non-bailable warrant again, which was recalled at the instance of the petitioner on 02.09.2023. However, the petitioner failed to offer surety, following which another NBW was issued on 10.10.2024, which was recalled on 30.11.2024. The petitioner again remained absent, following which an NBW was issued on 05.05.2025 and the bail bond and surety bond furnished by the accused No.1 was forfeited. A proclamation was issued against the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the trial Court. The petitioner then filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth referred to as Cr.P.C.), which was rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner had failed to appear before the Court persistently.
3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused No.4 is before this Court. -4-
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner had gone into depression and that he had inflicted injuries on himself and therefore, he was not in a position to appear before the Court and offer surety. He submits that the petitioner would appear before the Court and also furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court if an opportunity is granted.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader on the
other hand contended that the petitioner has consistently remained absent and it has become a routine for the petitioner to absent from the proceedings. She submits that if this attitude of the petitioner continues, it may hamper the trial and also the respondent would have difficulty in procuring the witnesses. She therefore prays that the judicial custody of the petitioner be continued so that the trial could be concluded at the earliest.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. -5-
7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was released
on bail and he was required to furnish surety. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has remained absent before the trial Court, forcing the trial Court to issue non-bailable warrants on various dates. The charge sheet is filed on 13.03.2019 and no headway is made in the progress of the case, which can be easily attributed to the petitioner's default in appearing before the Court. Since it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is under depression, which dissuaded him from appearing before the Court a final opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioner to appear before the Court and comply with all the conditions of bail and also appear before the Court on all dates of hearing. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to furnish surety or fail to appear before the Court on all dates of hearing, it will be open for the Court to take necessary measures to secure the presence of the petitioner by canceling the bail granted to him and take necessary measures in accordance with law. Hence, the following order is passed:
-6-
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed; ii. The petitioner/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to he fulfilling the conditions imposed by the trial Court while granting bail and also subject to the condition that he shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing, unless exempted by the Court. iii. It is also made clear that if the petitioner violates any of the above, the trial Court is reserved liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66