Manjunatha vs Karnataka State on 30 January, 2018

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Manjunatha vs Karnataka State on 30 January, 2018

Bench: R.B Budihal

                            1



 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
    DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8678/2017
BETWEEN:
Manjunatha,
S/o. Bheemaiah,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at Srigiripura,
Kudur Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara - 571 511.                   ...Petitioner

(By Sri. M. Partha Sarathy, Advocate)

AND:

Karnataka State,
By Kuduru Police Station.               .... Respondent

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)



      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.199/2008 of Kuduru Police Station, Ramanagara
for the offences P/U/S 498(A), 304(B), 306 and 201 of
IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:

                        ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail 2 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 498(A), 304(B), 306 and 201 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent Police in crime No. 199/2008.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent State.

3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced by the petitioner along with the petition.

4. Petitioner was granted with bail earlier but as he remained absent to appear before the concerned trial court his bail was cancelled. Summons was issued. NBW was issued. There afterwards invoking Section 82 and 83 of CRPC proclamation also issued in this case. Thereafter he was taken into custody.

5. In this regard, I have perused orders of the learned Sessions Judge. In para No.3, it is clearly 3 mentioned about the conduct of the petitioner. Crime is of the year 2008, though we are in the year 2018, because of the conduct of the petitioner trial could not be completed for the disposal of the main case itself.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the petition and submitted that if he released on bail he may abscond and put hurdles in the progress of the investigation. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner herein. Hence, petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE BVK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court