Blog

Case Title: Sri kirana and Sri Vasantha vs. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 4068 of 2024

Dated On : 16^th May, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE

Sri Kirana, son of Devarju K. Gowda, aged about 20 years, and Sri Vasantha, son of Sri Vasantha, aged about 22 years, are the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 4068 of 2024 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru. They reside in different locations within Bengaluru. The petitioners are seeking bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No.216/2016 registered at Tavarekere Police Station, Magadi Circle, Ramanagara District. The charges against them include offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 307, 302 read with Section 149. The petitioners had previously been granted bail, but they violated the bail conditions by absconding. They were accused Nos.4 and 8 in the case, which dates back to 2016. Despite being granted bail, they evaded law enforcement from 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. The petitioners’ counsel argued that their absence was due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but there was no evidence presented to confirm whether they had contracted the virus or not. Additionally, it was questioned why they remained in hiding from 2020 to 2023, despite having been granted bail earlier. The court observed that the petitioners’ actions constituted a violation of the previous bail order and noted the significant passage of time since the incident occurred in 2016. Furthermore, it was highlighted that a separate case had been registered due to their absconding, adding complexity to the legal proceedings.

ISSUES

1. Whether the petitioners, Sri Kirana and Sri Vasantha, violated the bail conditions by absconding, and if so, what consequences should follow.
2. Whether the reasons provided by the petitioners’ counsel, citing the Covid-19 pandemic, are justified for their absence and evasion from the authorities.
3. Whether, considering the elapsed time since the incident in 2016, the petitioners’ absconding, and the additional complexities introduced by the split-up case, it is appropriate to exercise discretion in favour of granting bail again.
4. How to ensure the expeditious consideration of the case by the Trial Court, given the circumstances and the rejection of the bail petition by the High Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):
2. • Section 143: Punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly.

1. • Section 147: Punishment for rioting.

1. • Section 148: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.

1. • Section 448: Punishment for house-trespass.

1. • Section 427: Mischief causing damage to property.

1. • Section 307: Attempt to murder.

1. • Section 302: Punishment for murder.

1. • Section 149: Every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object.

2. Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section grants the High Court and the Court of Sessions the power to grant bail in certain cases.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Sri. Rajanna C, counsel of the appellant submitted that the petitioners’ failure to appear before the court was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was contended that the pandemic hindered their ability to comply with the legal proceedings. The appellant’s counsel raised a point regarding the absence of concrete evidence to support the claim that the petitioners were unable to appear in court due to Covid-19. It was suggested that there was no material presented to ascertain whether the petitioners had indeed contracted the virus. It was argued that a significant amount of time had passed since the incident occurred in 2016. The appellant’s counsel emphasised that almost eight years had elapsed, yet the case had not reached its finality.  The appellant’s counsel highlighted the fact that the petitioners had previously been granted bail but had violated the conditions of their bail by absconding. This was presented as a violation of the court’s previous order. The counsel pointed out that a separate case had been registered due to the petitioners’ absconding, further complicating the legal proceedings. This complexity was cited as a reason to deny bail to the petitioners. These contentions were put forth by the appellant’s counsel to argue against granting bail to the petitioners, citing various factors such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the violation of bail conditions, the passage of time, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Sri. Divakar Maddur, who is referred to as the High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) submitted that the petitioners had violated the bail conditions by absconding. It was contended that the petitioners’ actions constituted a breach of the court’s previous bail order. The respondent highlighted the timeline of events, stating that the petitioners absconded from the year 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. This prolonged absence was presented as evidence of the petitioners’ disregard for the legal proceedings. The respondent’s counsel challenged the claim made by the appellant’s counsel regarding the petitioners’ absence being attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was argued that there was no material presented to substantiate this claim or confirm whether the petitioners had contracted the virus. The respondent pointed out that due to the petitioners’ absconding, a split-up case had been registered, adding complexity to the legal proceedings. It was suggested that this additional complexity warranted denying bail to the petitioners. These contentions were presented by the respondent’s counsel to support their argument against granting bail to the petitioners, emphasising the violation of bail conditions, the prolonged absence of the petitioners, the absence of evidence regarding Covid-19, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case.

 COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court acknowledged that the petitioners had violated the bail conditions by absconding, as highlighted by both the appellant’s and respondent’s counsels. This was considered a significant factor in the court’s decision-making process.The court noted the timeline of events, stating that the petitioners had absconded from 2020 until they were apprehended in 2023 after Non-Bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them. This extended period of absence was deemed concerning by the court.

The court scrutinised the claim made by the appellant’s counsel regarding the petitioners’ absence being due to the Covid-19 pandemic. It was observed that there was no evidence presented to substantiate this claim or confirm whether the petitioners had contracted the virus.

The court acknowledged the additional complexity introduced by the split-up case registered due to the petitioners’ absconding. This was considered a complicating factor in the legal proceedings.

After considering all the arguments presented by both sides, the court exercised its discretion and concluded that it was not appropriate to grant bail to the petitioners again. The court emphasised the seriousness of the charges, the violation of bail conditions, the prolonged absence of the petitioners, and the absence of evidence regarding Covid-19 as key factors in its decision.

The court ultimately rejected the Criminal Petition filed by the petitioners seeking bail. Additionally, the Trial Court was directed to consider the matter expeditiously, ensuring timely justice.

In summary, the court’s analysis and judgement focused on the violation of bail conditions, the extended absence of the petitioners, the lack of evidence regarding the Covid-19 claim, and the complexity introduced by the split-up case. These factors collectively led the court to deny the petitioners’ request for bail.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

Click here to view judgement