Santhosh G vs the State of Karnataka by

Santhosh G vs The State of Karnataka by

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided May 30, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1898098

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1898098
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: M G UMA
Decided On: May 30, 2024
Case Number: CRL.P/3516/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Santhosh G

Respondent

The State of Karnataka by

Excerpt

.....for the petitioner and smt. m.m. waheeda, learned high court government pleader for the respondent- state. perused the materials on record.3. in view of the rival contentions urged by thelearned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under section 438 of cr.p.c.?” my answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following: -3- reasons4. the petitioner who is arrayed as accused no.6 isseeking grant of anticipatory bail. it is stated that the date of incident is 23.07.2023. after investigation, charge sheet is filed on 12.08.2023 showing the petitioner as absconding. admittedly nbw was issued by the court, but the presence of the accused cannot be secured.5. it is stated by the learned hcgp that two morecases are registered against the petitioner and he is having criminal antecedents. same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. considering all these facts and circumstances and the conduct of the petitioner, i am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. hence, i answer the above point in negative. accordingly, petition stands dismissed. sd/- judge pn list no.: 1 sl no.: 24

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3516 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SANTHOSH .G. S/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT #8, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BHUVI COLONY, DODDABOMMASANDRA, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097. …PETITIONER Digitally signed (BY SRI. MANJUNATH .B.R., ADVOCATE) by R MANJUNATHA Location: high AND: court of karnataka THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANAPURA P.S BENGALURU - 97 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. .M.M. WAHEEDA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.180/2023 REGISTERED BY VIDYANARANYAPURA P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 399 AND 402 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.24559/23. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -2-

ORDER

Petitioner- accused No.6 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.180/2023 of Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the complainant Hanamantha Uppara- PSI.

2. Heard Sri Manjunath B.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. M.M. Waheeda, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: -3- REASONS

4. The petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.6 is

seeking grant of anticipatory bail. It is stated that the date of incident is 23.07.2023. After investigation, charge sheet is filed on 12.08.2023 showing the petitioner as absconding. Admittedly NBW was issued by the Court, but the presence of the accused cannot be secured.

5. It is stated by the learned HCGP that two more

cases are registered against the petitioner and he is having criminal antecedents. Same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering all these facts and circumstances and the conduct of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, I answer the above point in negative. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2024 Same Parties Santhosh G vs The State of Karnataka by Same Judge M G UMA