IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE. CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.440/2014

Transcription

1 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF JULY, 2014 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.440/2014 BETWEEN: MR.CHETAN SHAH, S/O SRI NAVNITLAL SHAH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ASHAPURA MINECHEM LIMITED, JEEVAN UDYOG BUILDING, 3 RD FLOOR, 278, DR.D.N.ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA.... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI.B.NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. HIREMATH AKKAMAHADEVI, ADV.) AND: CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ACB, BANGALORE, BANGALORE, BANGALORE RESPONDENT (BY SRI C.H.JADHAV, ADV.) THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.15/2014

2 -2- HOLDING THAT THE PETR. IS ENTITLED TO THE CONTINUED BENEFIT OF THE EARLIER BAIL ORDER DATED: THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The petitioner has challenged the order dated passed by the learned Sessions Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore rejecting his application filed under Section 205 r/w Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and issuing non-bailable warrant against him. 2. The facts reveal that the petitioner was arraigned as accused No.3 in Cr.No.189/2010 (C.C.No.454/2011) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 379 r/w Sections 34 & 35 of IPC. He applied for bail and the bail was granted. Subsequently, the CBI-respondent herein took out the investigation as per the direction of the Apex Court and registered RC.No.17(A)/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 120B r/w 409, 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of

3 -3- Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. In this regard, Spl.C.C.No.15/2014 was registered against the petitioner who is the third accused in the said case. The petitioner said to have submitted an application under Section 205 r/w Section 317 of Cr.P.C. requesting for permanent exemption and the learned Sessions judge has rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner was not on bail in RC.No.17(A)/2012 registered subsequently by the CBI and issued non-bailalbe warrant. The said order is challenged in this revision petition. 3. Heard Sri. Ravi.B.Naik, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C.H.Jadhav, learned senior counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner was granted bail in respect of Cr.No.189/2010 and on the same set of facts which were pleaded in the complaint in

4 -4- RC.No.17(A)/2012 registered by the CBI, the question of obtaining the bail for second crime does not arise. Therefore, he submits that at the most the learned Sessions Judge would have rejected the application for the permanent exemption permitting the petitioner to appear before the Court and he also submits that the issuance of warrant against the petitioner is illegal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the trial Court and submits that the petitioner has to apply for bail again after the registration of another crime against him by the CBI wherein the offences are different. 6. Perusal of the materials placed on record would reveal that the petitioner is on bail in Cr.No.189/2010 (C.C.No.454/2011), where the offences are under Sections 120B, 379 r/w Sections 34 & 35 of IPC in which the petitioner was granted

5 -5- bail, but subsequently when the Apex Court issued a direction for investigation to the CBI, the CBI after investigation, registered RC.No.17(A)/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w 409, 420 of IPC and Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Though the facts may be the same, but the CBI has registered the crime for other offences for which the petitioner has to approach the Court for bail. It is on that ground, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application and I do not find any error in the order of the trial Court, but so far as the issuance of non-bailable warrant is concerned, when the petitioner has already put in appearance through the advocate, the Court at the most would have directed the petitioner to appear on the next date instead of taking serious steps of issuing non-bailable warrant. To this extent, the learned Sessions Judge appears to be erroneous and

6 -6- illegal and that part of the order needs to be quashed. 7. Consequently, the petition is allowed-inpart confirming the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed under Section 205 r/w Section 317 of Cr.P.C., issuance of non-bailalbe warrant against the petitioner is quashed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court on If an application for bail is filed, the learned Sessions Judge shall consider the same expeditiously. Sd/- JUDGE VM