The High Court of Karnataka has ruled that an accused person who has already been granted regular bail is not entitled to seek anticipatory bail in the same crime subsequently, even if they apprehend arrest due to the issuance of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) for non-appearance.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed a criminal petition filed by an accused facing charges of robbery, observing that the appropriate remedy for non-appearance is to approach the trial court for the recall of the warrant.
Case Background
The case pertains to Criminal Petition No. 14233 of 2025, filed by Mudasir @ Muddu, the second accused in Crime No. 5/2020 registered by the Byappanahalli Police Station. The case was initially registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) but culminated in a charge sheet filed for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC (Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt). The matter is currently pending as C.C. No. 51982/2021 on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
According to the records, the petitioner was granted regular bail during the crime stage vide an order dated February 10, 2020. However, following the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner failed to appear before the trial court. Consequently, the jurisdictional court issued a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against him.
On June 17, 2022, the petitioner had successfully advanced the case and filed an application under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), getting the NBW recalled. However, he subsequently failed to appear again, leading the trial court to issue a fresh NBW and a proclamation against him. Apprehending arrest due to these developments, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC (filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, BNSS).
Arguments
Counsel for the Petitioner: The counsel submitted that after the charge sheet was filed, the petitioner had not received any summons. Regarding the subsequent non-appearance after the recall of the first warrant, the counsel argued that there was a “mis-communication between the petitioner and his counsel,” which prevented him from appearing in the case.
Counsel for the Respondent (State): Additional State Public Prosecutor Smt. Pushpalatha B. opposed the plea. She contended that the petitioner, having already been granted regular bail earlier in the proceedings, “is not entitled to anticipatory bail in the same crime.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar perused the materials on record and noted the procedural history of the petitioner’s non-appearance. The Court observed that the petitioner had already availed the benefit of regular bail and had even successfully recalled a previous warrant before defaulting again.
Addressing the core legal issue of whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in such circumstances, the Court observed:
“The petitioner who has been granted regular bail in the same crime is not entitled to seek anticipatory bail in the same crime.”
Regarding the defense raised by the petitioner for his absence, the Court firmly rejected the explanation:
“The reasons assigned by the petitioner for his non-appearance before the Court i.e., for mis-communication between the petitioner and his counsel is not acceptable reason.”
The Court further clarified the legal recourse available to the accused in such a situation, stating that “The petitioner can approach the trial Court and get NBW recalled.”
Decision
Holding that the petitioner had “not made out any grounds for grant of anticipatory bail,” the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mudasir @ Muddu v. State of Karnataka
- Case No: Criminal Petition No. 14233 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar
- Representation: Sri. Mohammed Arshad for the Petitioner; Smt. Pushpalatha B., Additional SPP for the Respondent.
