Mobile View

Karnataka High Court

Mr Shankar R Bhavani vs State Of Karnataka on 9 January,
2017
Author: Anand Byrareddy
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.354 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

Mr. Shankar R. Bhavani,

Son of Revanasiddappa L.J.,
Aged about 32 years,
C/of J-124, 3rd Cross,
Pipeline Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore - 560 003.

Presently working as
Senior Manager,
E.A.I.C.U, Business Process,
Mahindra Satyam,
2901M, Tasman Drive,
Suite No.106, Santaclara,
CA-95054, U.S.A.
...PETITIONER

(By Shri P.N.Hegde, Advocate)

2

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,
By Subramanya Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru ,
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore - 560 001.

2. Smt. Chandramma,
Wife of N.R.Narasimha,
50 years,
No:1711/10,
3rd Main Road,
Devaiah Park near,
Bengaluru - 560 003.
...RESPON
DENTS

(By Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government

Pleader for
Respondent No.1;
Respondent No.2 notice dispensed with)
*****

This Criminal Petition filed under Section

482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside
the order dated
7.1.2017 passed by the VII Additional Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.512/2015.

This Criminal Petition coming on for

Admission this day,
the court made the following:

ORDER

Notice to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

2. The petitioner is said to be accused of offences punishable under

Sections 504, 323, 354, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC', for brevity).

The petitioner is presently residing in the United States and is employed

there. On account of the criminal case that was instituted and since the
petitioner was not readily available before the court below, the court
below had issued a 'Look out notice'. Since the petitioner had no
intention of avoiding the criminal proceedings, he had approached this
court seeking that the 'Look out notice' be quashed in order to enable
him to come to India and to appear before the court without being
arrested. Accordingly, this court had quashed the 'Look out notice'.

3. The petitioner has now entered appearance before the court below and
seeks to participate in the proceedings. The court below however, has
take a strict view of the petitioner's conduct and in order to ensure that
he participates at the trial till its completion, has demanded the
petitioner to deposit his Passport before the jurisdictional police. It is in
this background that the petitioner is before this court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
proceedings are at a nascent stage and by the time the trial is completed,
it would require several months. The petitioner has serious
commitments with his employer in USA. and he is obliged to account
for his services which are valued at over 80000 $. Any kind of default
on the part of the petitioner, is likely that he would face yet another
criminal proceeding instituted in USA by his employer and therefore,
the learned counsel would submit that neither is he seeking to avoid the
court proceedings in India nor would he like to be mulcted with further
criminal proceedings by his employer in USA. Therefore, he would
submit that the petitioner's continued presence in India may not be
necessary.

5. The petitioner shall therefore ensure that he is present at all the

necessary stages at which the criminal court in India may require his
presence. He shall file an affidavit to that effect and also shall be placed
on such terms as the court below deems fit. Accordingly, the petitioner
shall file an affidavit before the court below undertaking to appear
before the court below on all necessary dates of hearing, and particularly
he shall be present on the date on which he would record his plea, the
date on which the charges would be framed and during the recording
of Section 313 statement.

Since there is no dispute about the identity of the petitioner, his presence
during the examination of all the witnesses may not be necessary. This
is an aspect which the Trial Court shall examine in considering
exempting the petitioner from appearance on such dates of hearing and
to impose any further condition as to his requisite appearance before the
court below, apart from at the stages mentioned hereinabove. The
petitioner apart from filing an affidavit, shall furnish two sureties for a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) each in this regard. On
satisfying these conditions and such other conditions which the Trial
Court may impose, the petitioner may be given permission to travel out
of India and back to India as and when required by the Trial Court.
Hence, the order of the court below directing the petitioner to surrender
his Passport to the jurisdictional police, is quashed.

I.A.1/2017 is disposed of as a consequence.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS