- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5261 CRL.P No. 155 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.155 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. PRASAD @ THIRTHA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT SHIVAKUMARA SWAMIJI NAGAR, KENGERI HOBALI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560060 …PETITIONER (BY SRI H MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MANORANJINI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. KIRAN KUMAR S/O GANGARAJU T,. AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, KUNDALAPURA KOLURU, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5261 CRL.P No. 155 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.216/2016 DATED 20.05.2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 307, 302, 149 OF IPC AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is a driver by occupation and he went for his livelihood and hence, he could not appear before the trial court for a period of one year and he re-arrested on 15.12.2022 and from the date of re-arrest, he is in custody and hence, requested to enlarge him on bail imposing conditions. 3. It has to be noted that it is a case of jumping of bail and already discretion was exercised in favour of the petitioner and when he did not appear before the trial - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5261 CRL.P No. 155 of 2025 court, split up case was registered against him and thereafter with great difficulty, he secured and once again exercising the discretion does not arise. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is not in dispute that earlier, bail was granted in favour of the petitioner and no doubt, the counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioner is a driver by profession and he went for job for his livelihood and hence, he could not appear before the trial court. But the fact that the petitioner is a driver by profession is not a reason when discretion has been exercised in his favour and he ought to have appeared before the trial court and assisted the trial court for early disposal and obliged the order of the trial court. It is also not in dispute that, split up case is registered against him when he did not cooperate and absconded. The learned counsel appearing for the State also submits that one or the other accused used to abscond and hence, trial could not be completed and though offence committed in the year 2016, till date, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5261 CRL.P No. 155 of 2025 the main case is also not disposed of. Having taken note of the said fact into consideration, the trial court rejected the bail when the discretion was exercised in favour of this petitioner and he disobeyed the order of the court and for a period of one year, he did not appear before the trial court and split up case also registered time and again and the trial court taken note of the fact that the accused persons are proclaimed offenders in view of their chronic abscondance in original case in S.C.No.15/2017. Under such circumstances, it is not a case for exercise the discretion once again. 5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The *criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN * Corrected vide Chamber Order dated 12.02.2025