Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 66591 (KAR)

SRI HARISH S/O SUBRAYA HEGDE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/101458/2025 · 2025-09-10

S Vishwajith Shetty

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11687 CRL.P No. 101458 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101458 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. HARISH S/O SUBRAYA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. AGRI. AND PREST, R/O. SOMANAHALLI, UNCHALLI, BANAVASI, TQ. SIRSI, DIST. KARWAR (U.K.) … PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580 011, KUMTA POLICE STATION. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYS THAT THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 HEREIN IS SEEK FOR QUASHING OF ORDER DATED 12.03.2025 WHEREBY TRIAL COURT REJECTS THE APPLICATIONS THE ORDER DATED 12.03.2025, THAT THE CASE IS PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KARWAR (U.K.) IN S.C. NO.27/2019 FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 363, 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC REGISTERED THE SESSIONS CASE AGAINST THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2, FOR THE CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEFS DOCUMENT NO.4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11687 CRL.P No. 101458 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused No.2 in S.C.No.27 of 2019 pending before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar is before this Court in this petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the order dated 12.03.2025 wherein the bail granted to the petitioner is cancelled and his bail bond was forfeited. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in S.C.No.27 of 2019 is facing trial in the said case along with accused Nos.1 and 3 for offences punishable under Sections 364, 120B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Accused Nos.1 and 3 are in judicial custody in the said case, while the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, has been granted regular bail. Before the trial Court, the case is at the stage of recording evidence of the charge sheet - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11687 CRL.P No. 101458 of 2025 witnesses. On 12.03.2025, the case was listed for further examination of PW61 and on the said date accused Nos.1 and 3 were produced from judicial custody. However petitioner/accused No.2 was not present and an application was filed by his advocate to exempt his presence. The trial Court taking into consideration that petitioner was consistently keeping himself absent and was attempting to delay the trial in the case, rejected the said application and also cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and forfeited his bail bond, and thereafter issued non-bailable warrant against him and show cause notice to his sureties. Assailing the said order dated 12.03.2025, petitioner is before this Court. 4. Perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court would go to show that petitioner was absent before the trial Court even on the earlier 3 dates of hearing and in spite of the same, on 12.03.2025 he had filed an application seeking exemption of his appearance. Taking into consideration that petitioner was consistently absent before the trial Court and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11687 CRL.P No. 101458 of 2025 the trial was being delayed because of that, the trial Court has rejected his exemption application. Having rejected his exemption application, the trial Court has further proceeded to cancel his bail and forfeit his bail bond. The order dated 12.03.2025 to the extent it relates to cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner and also forfeiting his bail bond, without even granting an opportunity of being heard either to the petitioner or to his sureties, is bad in law. 5. The trial Court having rejected the exemption application, filed on behalf of the petitioner, ought to have secured the presence of the petitioner and his sureties before the Court and thereafter proceeded in accordance with law. In the present case, having rejected the exemption application filed on behalf of the petitioner, the trial Court has cancelled his bail and forfeited his bail bond and thereafter issued non-bailable warrant as against him and show cause notice to his sureties and this approach of the trial Court is bad in law. However, since the petitioner has been consistently keeping himself absent before the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11687 CRL.P No. 101458 of 2025 trial Court and has been making attempts to delay the trial in the case, he is required to be put to terms. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar in S.C.No.27 of 2019 insofar as it relates to cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner and forfeiting his bail bonds, is set aside, subject to petitioner paying cost of ₹5,000/- before the trial Court on the next date of hearing. iii. Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court regularly and his presence shall not be exempted, unless for valid reasons to be stated by the trial Judge. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11687 CRL.P No. 101458 of 2025 iv. It is brought to the notice of this Court that out of the 70 charge sheet witnesses cited in the present case, 62 charge sheet witnesses are already examined as PW1 to PW62 and the trial is at the fag end. Considering the said aspect and also taking into consideration that accused Nos.1 and 3 are in custody for the last more than 6 years, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the case on merits at the earliest, but not later than a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v. Registry is directed to forthwith send a copy of this order to the learned trial judge. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21.1