Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil vs State Of Karnataka on 5 September, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sunil Kumar @ Silent Sunil vs State Of Karnataka on 5 September, 2019

Bench: Alok Aradhe

                              1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

                          BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

      WRIT PETITION NO.18789 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SUNIL KUMAR @ SILENT SUNIL
S/O KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO 701
TOWER - 6B
GODREJ WOODMEN'S ESATE
HEBBAL
BANGALORE - 560 024
                                            ... PETITIONER
(By MR.SUMAN, ADV. FOR MR.ANEES ALI KHAN, ADV.)

AND:
1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        HOME DEPARTMENT
        BY ITS SECRETARY
        BANGALORE - 560 001

2.      MR ALOK KUMAR
        THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER
        OF POLICE (CRIME)
        NO.1 INFANTRY ROAD
        BANGALORE - 560 001
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(By MR.M VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1 & 2)
                          ---

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-2 TO COMPENSATE THE PETITIONER FOR DETAINING HIM3
DAYS (TWICE) FOR NO FAULT OF HIS BY R-2; AND ETC.
                             2



     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                         ORDER

Mr.Suman, learned counsel for Mr.Anees Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.

3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a direction to the respondent No.2 to compensate the petitioner for detaining him for 3 days for no fault of his, by respondent No.2.

4. When a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the relief sought for in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not sought any such relief in the petition. 3

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, nothing survives for adjudication in the petition.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE RV

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court