SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bhadrinath vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1714 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

BHADRINATH
S/O. M.N. BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE TAXI DRIVER,
RESIDING AT NO.34/2,
RAJEEV GANDHI ROAD,
RAJYOTHSAVANAGARA,
JARAGANAHALLI,
J.P. NAGARA 6TH PHASE,
BANGALORE.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
PUTTENASHALLI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)

***
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO.300 OF 2017 (S.C.NO.247 OF 2018) OF PUTTENAHALLI
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.
498A 304B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF I.P.C. AND SECTION 4
AND 6 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader.

2. Earlier petition filed in Criminal Petition No.9616

of 2017 was dismissed on merits, by order dated

8-1-2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that since then, charge-sheet has been laid against the

petitioner which amounts to a changed circumstance.

The petitioner is in custody since 16-8-2017 and accused

No.2 is already enlarged on bail. The post-mortem report

does not reveal any external injury. Therefore, he seeks

for grant of bail.

3

3. Looking to the previous order passed by this

Court in Criminal Petition 9616 of 2017, it is seen that all

the contentions urged by the petitioner on fact as well on

law have been considered and answered. Therefore, I do

not find any good reason to re-consider the said order.

However, having regard to the nature of the allegations

made against the petitioner and the petitioner being in

judicial custody for nearly a year, it would be appropriate

to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial as

expeditiously as possible.

4. Hence, the trial Court is directed to conclude the

trial expeditiously within an outer limit of six months from

the communication of this order. If the trial is not

completed within six months, the petitioner is at liberty to

move the trial Court for grant of bail.
4

With the above observations, the petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

kvk

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh