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 2, Cited by 1]

Supreme Court of India

Thangela Narendra @ Chinnu vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 SC 949, 2019 (14) SCC 709, (2019) 1 HINDULR 777, (2019) 1 SCALE 56, (2019) 2 ALLCRILR 99, (2019) 2 KER LT 777, (2019) 73 OCR 715

Author: Kurian Joseph

Bench: Hemant Gupta, Kurian Joseph

                                                             1

                                                                                     NON-REPORTABLE

                                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1417 OF 2018
                              [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 4303 OF 2018]


                         THANGELA NARENDRA @ CHINNU                                Appellant (s)

                                                          VERSUS

                         THE STATE OF KARNATAKA                                    Respondent(s)


                                                         WITH

                                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1418 OF 2018
                              [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7404 OF 2018]


                                                    J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants are aggrieved since the High Court has declined to grant bail despite the fact that the investigation had been completed. The charge is under Section 498A read with Section 304B and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986. The trial court is yet to take a call on the report filed by the police.

Signature Not Verified

3. Having regard to the fact that the investigation Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.01.19 10:33:34 IST Reason: has already been completed and that the appellants had already been in jail for around a year, this 2 Court, at the time of admission, had granted them interim bail.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the State, we are of the view that the appellants be continued on bail during the pendency of the trial. Ordered accordingly. However, it will be open to the State to seek cancellation of bail in case the appellants do not cooperate with the trial.

5. In view of the above, the appeals are disposed of.

6. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] New Delhi;

November 19, 2018.