Full Judgment
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the petitioners praying that this Honble Court to set aside the order dated 18.08.10 passed by the C.J., (JR.DN.) and JMFC, Maddur in Cr.No.23/09 and in C.C.No.11/10.)
1. This petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 07.09.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Maddur in crime No.23/2009 of Maddur Police Station.
2. The incident happened on 18.01.2009 at about 08.45 PM at Shimsha Bar and Restaurant where it is alleged that the petitioners picked up a quarrel with respect to payment of hotel bill with the cashier under the influence of alcohol. When the same was questioned by one Shivaramu CW2, it is alleged that the petitioners have assaulted him with iron rod on his head and another person picked up a stone and attempted assault CW2. It is also further stated that accused No.4 assaulted on the chest of CW2 with a small stone with an intention to cause his death and all the accused persons insulted CW2 in filthy language and caused simple injuries whereupon case for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 323, 504 and 307 read with Section 149 IPC is registered. The petitioners approached the Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected and thereafter this Court in Criminal petition No.4920/2009 directed the petitioners to be released on bail in the event of their arrest on certain conditions including the one under which they were directed to move for regular bail within one month from the date of their arrest and release by police.
3. The petitioners thereafter approached the learned Magistrate praying that in view of the order of the High Court of Karnataka in the above said criminal petition granting anticipatory bail to them, they may be enlarged on bail. The learned Magistrate rejected the said bail application by a separate order dated 07.09.2010 and on the order sheet dated 07.09.2010 their application for exemption is also rejected and non-bailable warrant is issued. It is this order that the petitioners have challenged in this Court.
4. Heard Sri. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Satish R. Girji learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.
5. It is seen from the order of the learned Magistrate that instead of advancing the cause of justice injustice has been caused to the petitioners and it virtually amounts to mockery of justice. When this Court has granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners the learned Magistrate had no business to reject the bail application filed by the petitioners particularly when the offence was only under Section 307 IPC and the injuries were simple in nature. The order rejecting the bail application of the petitioners by the learned Magistrate runs contrary to the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in 2011 (1) Crimes 109(SC) between Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. When there is an order of the High Court that the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest, the order of the learned Magistrate to issue warrant against them is a clear abuse of process of Court and amounts to disregard to the order of the High Court by a sub-ordinate Court. All that the learned Magistrate could have done is to reject the bail if he so wanted and await for the order of the Sessions Court granting bail to the petitioners. The approach of the learned Magistrate is totally contrary to the interest of justice for the simple reason that the injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature and the incident had occurred on 18.01.2009. Needless to say that the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the bail as well as the order issuing warrant deserves to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed and the order dated 07.09.2010 rejecting bail by the learned Magistrate and the order dated 07.09.2010 issuing warrant is hereby set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to obtain a bail bond for Rs.25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum from the petitioners and thereafter commit the case to the Court of Sessions.