Despite Co-Accused’s Acquittal, Karnataka HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Who Absconded 11 Years In 12-TV Theft Case

The petitioner, arraigned as accused No. 3 in the split-up case, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), in a case alleging offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and others stole twelve LED televisions from an electronics shop during the night of 16–17 June 2015.

The other accused were arrested and tried separately; that case ended in acquittal.

The petitioner’s case was split up and numbered as C.C. No. 55/2019.

The prosecution opposed bail on the ground that the petitioner had remained absent for years despite opportunities and that warrants and a proclamation had been issued.

The Sessions Judge had refused anticipatory bail.

Section 482 of the BNSS provides for anticipatory bail; the alleged offences were punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of the IPC.

The Court treated the petitioner’s prolonged abscondence and failure to appear, despite opportunities, as material circumstances weighing against anticipatory bail.

It also held that parity did not justify anticipatory bail where the co-accused had voluntarily surrendered, been remanded to custody and thereafter obtained regular bail.

The Court noted that the petitioner had remained absent from the proceedings for approximately eleven years after the case was registered and for more than six years after the split-up case was registered.

Unlike the co-accused who obtained regular bail, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail without first appearing before the trial court; the Court considered that releasing him on bail could cause hardship to the police and hamper the trial.

The co-accused’s acquittal was not a basis for anticipatory bail, though the petitioner could appear before the trial court and face trial.

It found no error in the Sessions Judge’s refusal of bail and dismissed the petition.