Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kiran Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2023
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, Pankaj Mithal
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.8 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6556/2023
(Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 10-04-2023 in
CRLP No. 341/2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru)
KIRAN KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
(IA No. 106291/2023 - AMENDMENT OF APPEAL / PETITION / I.A.
IA No. 108402/2023 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 103917/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 105822/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 103918/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 105818/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ ANNEXURES) Date : 13-09-2023 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Md. Apzal Ansari, Adv.
Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. V.N. Raghupathy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka. Signature Not Verified
2. Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2023.09.16 The petitioner is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with 10:00:14 IST Reason:
FIR No. 201 of 2022. He is working as a Meter Reader in the 1 Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board. The allegation against him is that he had misappropriated the cash payment made by the customers.
3. The pre-arrest bail for the petitioner was refused by the High Court noticing that he is absconding from the date of the complaint i.e., 16.12.2022. Of course, following the protective order granted by this Court on 18.05.2023, the petitioner has appeared before the I.O.
4. Looking at the nature of the allegation, our view is that the pre-arrest bail is unmerited in the present case. When this opinion was expressed, Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would surrender within 7 days and then apply for regular bail.
5. Accepting the above, the petitioner is granted a week’s time to surrender. If regular bail application is filed, the same is ordered to be considered expeditiously and on merit.
6. With the above order, the Special Leave Petition stands disposed of.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(NITIN TALREJA) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2