Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ravi @ Ravichandra P vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2017

Author: Rathnakala

Bench: Rathnakala

                              1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.49 OF 2017

Between:

Sri. Ravi @ Ravichandra. P
S/o Koragappa Sapaliga
Aged about 36 years,
R/of Karyangala Village,
Bantwal Taluk,
D.K. District-574 211
                                            ...Petitioner

(By Sri. Rahul Rai. K, Advocate
 for Aruna Shyam M, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka
Through Bantwal Rural
Police Station, D.K. District.
Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 001
                                          ...Respondent
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa , HCGP)
                             ---
      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr. P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
                             2


of his arrest in Cr. No.130/2006 of Bantwal Rural P.S.,
D.K. District for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 324, 307, 435, 153 R/w 149 of
IPC.

    This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:-

                       ORDER

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

2. From the records, it is seen that the present petitioner is shown as absconding accused in the charge sheet submitted by the respondent police in Crime No.130/2006 in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 324, 307, 435, 153(A) R/w 149 of IPC.

3. The petitioner contends that he was aware of the pendency of main case and acquittal of the accused persons. At no point of time, the police called him for 3 interrogation and process of Court was never served on him.

4. Since it is shown that petitioner has been absconding, he is not entitled for benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. He shall surrender before the concerned Court and then move for regular bail. Hence, petition is rejected.

5. In the event, the petitioner surrenders before the concerned Court and moves for regular bail, the same shall be considered in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

JUDGE ra