The State Through vs Mallappa @ Mallinath S/O Ningappa on 18 March, 2016

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

The State Through vs Mallappa @ Mallinath S/O Ningappa on 18 March, 2016

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

                             1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                  KALABURAGI BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2016

                         BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.200695/2015

Between:

The State through
Madana Hipparga Police Station
                                              ... Petitioner
(By Sri Maqbool Ahmed, Advocate)

And:

Mallappa @ Mallinath
S/o Ningappa
Age: 25 Years, Occ: Driver
R/o Madan Hipparaga
Tq. Aland
                                            ... Respondent

     This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to file criminal petition
against the order dated 13.05.2015 in Crime No.29/2015
passed by the II-Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi in
releasing the accused by granting bail and to set aside the
order passed by II-Additional Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi
dated 13.05.2015 in Crime No.29/2015 in granting interim
bail to the accused.
                                   2




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

                            ORDER

This petition is filed seeking for setting aside the order passed by II-Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, in Crime No.29/2015 for granting interim bail to the accused on 12.05.2015.

2. The learned High Court Government Pleader has produced the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., on 13.05.2015 on merits of the petition.

3. The records disclose that the said interim bail order was passed on 12.05.2015. The learned High Court Government Pleader by mistaken notion mentioned the date of interim bail order granted as on '13.05.2015' instead of '12.05.2015'. The main contention of the learned High Court Government 3 Pleader is that granting of interim bail order by the Trial Court is bad in law.

4. As could be seen from the records, the Trial Court has granted opportunity to the State to file their objections and virtually, though it has granted interim bail on 12.05.2015 but on the next day i.e., on 13.05.2015, the Court has in detail passed the order after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and granted bail on merits of the case. In view of the order being passed on merits of the case, the present petition does not survive for consideration as in this petition challenge is only against the order granting interim bail. Hence, the petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court