Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri N Nagaraju @ Nagappa, was accused No.4 in Crime No.722/2014 registered by Hebbagodi Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He had been earlier granted bail by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.9514/2017 on 22.01.2018. However, on 10.07.2019, the accused remained absent before the trial court, and his counsel submitted that he had no instructions from the accused. Consequently, the trial court issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) and the accused was secured under warrant. The petitioner then filed the present criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking enlargement on bail. The High Court observed that the order-sheet revealed that except on 10.07.2019 and the date of issuing NBW, the accused had been regularly appearing before the court. The court reasoned that the accused was not aware of the date of posting as his counsel had no instructions, and the trial court could have condoned the absence and admitted him to bail. Therefore, it was not proper to deny bail. The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, and directed him to appear before the court as and when required.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bail - Section 439 CrPC - Absence of accused - The petitioner, accused of murder under Section 302 IPC, sought bail after his earlier bail was cancelled due to his absence on one date. The court noted that the accused had been regularly appearing except on 10.07.2019 when his counsel stated he had no instructions. The court held that the trial court could have condoned the absence and admitted him to bail, and it was not proper to deny bail on that ground. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner/accused should be granted bail under Section 439 CrPC when he had previously been granted bail but later remained absent on one date due to lack of instructions from his counsel, resulting in issuance of non-bailable warrant.
Final Decision
Criminal petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No.4 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. He shall appear before the court as and when required.
Law Points
- Bail
- Section 439 CrPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Absence of accused
- Condonation of absence
- Regular appearance
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 49
Criminal Petition No.2716 of 2020
Justice John Michael Cunha
Sri M. Srinivasaiah (for petitioner), Sri Thejesh P. (HCGP for respondent)
Sri. N Nagaraju @ Nagappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition for bail under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought enlargement on bail in Crime No.722/2014 (S.C.No.5069/2017) registered by Hebbagodi Police Station for offence under Section 302 IPC.
Filing Reason
The petitioner had been earlier granted bail but was later taken into custody after a non-bailable warrant was issued due to his absence on 10.07.2019.
Previous Decisions
The petitioner was earlier granted bail by the High Court in Crl.P.No.9514/2017 dated 22.01.2018. On 10.07.2019, the accused remained absent and his counsel stated he had no instructions, leading to issuance of NBW and the accused being secured under warrant.
Issues
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under Section 439 CrPC despite his previous absence on one date.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the accused was not aware of the date of posting as his counsel had no instructions, and he had been regularly appearing on all other dates.
Learned HCGP took notice for the respondent-State.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the accused's absence on one date due to lack of instructions from his counsel did not justify denial of bail, especially since he had been regularly appearing on all other dates. The trial court could have condoned the absence and admitted him to bail.
Judgment Excerpts
The above facts would go to show that the accused was not aware of the date of posting the matter for his appearance, as the counsel himself has stated that he had no instructions from the accused.
The order-sheet reveals that except on 10.07.2019 and on the date of issuing NBW, on all other dates, the accused has been regularly appearing before the Court and therefore the trial court could have condoned the absence and could have admitted him to bail.
Procedural History
The petitioner was earlier granted bail by the High Court in Crl.P.No.9514/2017 on 22.01.2018. On 10.07.2019, the accused remained absent and his counsel stated he had no instructions. The trial court issued a non-bailable warrant and the accused was secured under warrant. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Section 439 CrPC for bail.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 439
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 302
