Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sujith K.S., shown as accused No.6 in the charge sheet, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.126/2018 registered by Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 506 and 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The charge sheet was laid against seven accused persons. The material allegation against the petitioner was that due to a previous quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased, the petitioner engaged the services of accused Nos.1 to 4 to liquidate the deceased, and accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 4 committed the murder. The petitioner had been absconding since the date of commission of the alleged offence. The court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, and perusing the records, observed that having regard to the nature of the allegation and the fact that the petitioner remained absconding throughout the proceedings, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, followed in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, the petitioner was not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition was rejected.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Absconding Accused - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - The petitioner, accused No.6, sought anticipatory bail in a murder case where he allegedly conspired with other accused to kill the deceased due to a previous quarrel. The court held that in view of the law laid down in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, an absconding accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The petition was rejected. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an accused who has been absconding since the date of commission of the alleged offence is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The petition is rejected. The petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Absconding accused
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Murder conspiracy
- Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) principle
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 69
Criminal Petition No.524/2020
Sri.Parameswarappa C (for petitioner), Sri.Thejesh P., HCGP (for respondent)
Sujith K.S. (Shown as Surjith Nair in Charge Sheet)
The State of Karnataka, By Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought enlargement on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.126/2018.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was accused No.6 in a murder case and had been absconding since the date of the alleged offence.
Previous Decisions
Charge sheet had been laid against seven accused persons; petitioner was shown as absconding.
Issues
Whether an absconding accused is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued for grant of anticipatory bail.
Respondent-State opposed the petition, citing the petitioner's abscondence and the serious nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi
An accused who has been absconding since the commission of the alleged offence is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., following the principle laid down in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner has been shown as absconding ever since the date of commission of the alleged offence.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LAVESH v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI), (2012) 8 SCC 730, which is later followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PRADEEP SHARMA, (2014) 2 SCC 171, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.524/2020 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.126/2018 registered by Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station. The charge sheet had already been laid against seven accused persons, and the petitioner was shown as accused No.6 and had been absconding. The court heard the matter and rejected the petition on 02.07.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 323, 506, 212, 34
