1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.985 of 2021

BETWEEN

A.P. ABHIJITH

S/O. PUTTASWAMYGOWDA,

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

ARISHINAGERE VILLAGE,

BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK,

MANDYA DISTRICT 3 571 401.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE

for SRI H.B. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE BY BASARALU POLICE

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU 3 560 001.

... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439

OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO

ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME No.80/2020

REGISTERED BY BASARALU POLICE STATION, MANDYA RURAL

CIRCLE, MANDYA DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 404, 416 AND 424 OF THE INDIAN

PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 66(C) AND 66(D) OF THE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.06.2021 AND COMING ON FOR

PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE

FOLLOWING:

2

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under

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

No.80/2020 registered by the Basaralu Police Station for

the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 404, 416

and 424 of the IPC and Sections 66(c) and 66(d) of the

Information Technology Act, 2000 (for short 8IT Act9)

2.

Heard the arguments of Sri P.Prarsanna Kumar,

learned counsel appearing for Sri H.B.Chandrashekar,

learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint

of one Umashankar filed on 15.08.2020, the Police

registered the case against the unknown persons. During

the investigation, the Police arrested this petitioner on

18.08.2020, produced him before the Court on the same

day and he was remanded back to the Police on 19.8.2020

for

the

purpose

of

getting

Covid-19

test

done.

Subsequently, the learned Magistrate extended the time to

3

the Police till 20.08.2020. Accordingly, the accused was

remanded to Police custody till 20.08.2020. Later, from

20.08.2020, the remand of accused was extended till

17.11.2020. On that date, the Police filed the charge

sheet. The further case of the petitioner-accused is that

on the same day, he filed an application under Section

167(2) of Cr.P.C. for default bail. The same is reflected in

the order sheet of the learned Magistrate, but in the

afternoon, it was mentioned in the order sheet that the

Police filed the charge sheet and therefore, the right of

default bail to the accused under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

is not applicable. Hence, the bail petition came to be

rejected by order dated 17.11.2020 and again the

petitioner moved the bail petition before the Sessions

Judge under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., which also came to be

rejected. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4.

Learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner

seriously

contended that the accused was produced before the

Magistrate on 18.08.2020 and he was in custody from

4

19.08.2020. If the period is calculated till 17.11.2020, it

comes to 91 days. Prior to filing of the charge sheet, the

accused filed an application under Section 167(2) of

Cr.P.C. and the charge sheet came to be filed only in the

afternoon i.e. subsequent to the filing of the application by

the accused and thereby the accused gets the indefeasible

right for getting default bail under Section 167(2) of

Cr.P.C. In support of the case, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon9ble

Supreme Court in the case of Gautam Navlakha vs.

National Investigation Agency reported in 2021 SCC

OnLine SC 382 and S. Kasi vs. State through the

Inspector of Police Samaynallur Police Station

reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 529.

5.