The detention of the petitioner in custody till the conclusion of trial would amount to infringement of his right and life of liberty, leading to the grant of bail with specific conditions.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.192/2013 (S.C.NO.173/2019) of Konaje Police Station, Mangalore, pending on the file of VI additional District and Session Judge, D.K. Mangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 341, 323, 326, 354, 354(B), 364(A), 384, 376(D), 395, 342, 307, 506, 201 R/W 149 OF IPC (for short 'IPC') and Sec.66(E) of I.T Act, on the basis of the first information lodged by the Konaje Police Station.

2. Heard Sri Sri.Lethif B., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.S.Shankar, learned Counsel for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Initially, he was arrested on 21/12/2013, after filing of the charge sheet during the year 2014, he has been enlarged on bail and he attend the Court till June 2019. However, he did not attend the Court and thereafter, NBW was issued and he was arrested once again on 16/7/2020. Since then he is in judicial custody. Petitioner is not required to be detained in custody for any purpose except to ensure his presence before the trial Court. Petitioner undertakes to attend and appear before the trial Court on all the dates of hearing and he will abide by all reasonable conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the present case, there are two other criminal cases, one is of the year 2017 and the other is of the year 2020 registered against him. In both these cases, he has already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is not a habitual offender and the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per Contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. Even though he was enlarged on bail initially, he jumped bail and remained absconding for more than 10 years. NBW and proclamation were issued against him. Moreover, he is a habitual offender and there are several other cases registered against him. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the conduct of the petitioner/accused No.2, he is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for the dismissal of the petition.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.?"

My answer to the above point is in the Affirmative for the following:

R E A S O N S

7. The allegations made against the petitioner is of serious nature and there are 9 accused. Initially, the petitioner was apprehended on 21/12/2013 and was released on bail during May 2015 i.e., after filing of the charge sheet by the Investigation Officer during 2014. Admittedly, the petitioner jumped bail and remained absconding since 12/6/2019 and he was apprehended after issuing NBW and proclamation. The conduct of the petitioner in absconding without complying the conditions imposed on the bail, does not entitle him to seek bail.

8. However, admittedly other accused except accused No.6 are on bail and it is the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner has to be detained in custody to ensure his presence before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will be regular in attending the trial Court on all the dates of hearing. The said submission is placed on record. Since the detention of the petitioner in custody till the conclusion of trial would amount to infringement of his right and life of liberty, I am of th