This petition is filed by the petitioner/Accused No.1

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime

No.12/2013 (C.C.No.52/2014) of Bidadi Police Station,

registered for the offence punishable under Sections 395,

412 and 120B of IPC, pending on the file of Court of

Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara.

2.

The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in

the original crime. Subsequently, during the crime stage

the accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were arrested. After

completing the investigation, the investigating officer has

submitted the charge sheet for the offence punishable

under Sections 395, 412 and 120B of IPC. The present

petitioner all along absconding and hence, the case

against him came to be split up and registered in

C.C.No.52/2014 and original case against other accused

was committed to the Sessions Court and registered in

- 3 -

S.C.No.79/2014. The trial has also commenced in the said

case. The warrant came to be issued against the present

petitioner all along, but it remained unexecuted reporting

that his address is not known. Proclamation was also

under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner

and the original case continued before the sessions Court.

In the meanwhile on 28.10.2022 the present petitioner

was arrested and was produced before the learned

magistrate. Then the case was again committed to

sessions Court and now it is submitted that matter is

pending before the sessions Court along with original

S.C.No.79/2014 which is pending for trial wherein the

material witnesses have been examined. The petitioner

has approached the learned sessions judge and the

learned sessions judge has rejected the bail petition.

Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3.

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court

- 4 -

Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the

records.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite

the attention of the Court to the remandyadi wherein, it is

referred that the address of the petitioner was shown in

the records along with his mobile number and however all

along it is reported that his address is unknown while

submitting the report to the concerned police. Learned

counsel would further submit that there are no criminal

antecedents against the present petitioner. Hence, he

would contend that he had no knowledge of registration of

the case itself and he is in custody since 1½ months. He

would also undertake to abide by the terms and conditions

to be imposed by this Court and sought for admitting the

petitioner on regular bail.

5.

Per contra learned HCGP would seriously

oppose the bail petition on the ground that the present

petitioner is a proclaimed offender and all the efforts to

- 5 -

secure his presence went in vain and State has spent huge

amount in securing him. In case he is enlarged on bail,

there is every possibility of he tampering the prosecution

witness and hence, prayed for rejection of the bail

petition.

6.

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

records, it is evident that crime was alleged to have been

committed on 09.01.2013. Initially FIR was lodged for the

offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC. However,

subsequently, after the investigation, the charge sheet

came to be submitted for the offence punishable under

Sections 412, 395 and 120B of IPC. The present petitioner

is accused No.1. The records disclose that though the

present petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1, all along

he remained absent and he is shown to be absconding

accused in the charge sheet. Hence, warrant came to be

issued and it was unexecuted reporting that his address is

not known. Later on the case against the present

- 6 -

petitioner was split up and the case against other accused

came to be committed to the Sessions Court which is

registered in S.C.No.79/2014. Since the Court is unable to

secure the presence of the present petitioner/accused

No.1, the proclamation under Sections 82 and 83