| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/925445 |
| Subject | Criminal |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Mar-28-2012 |
| Case Number | CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012 |
| Judge | K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J. |
| Acts | Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306 |
| Appellant | Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy, |
| Respondent | The State of KamatakA. |
| Advocates: | Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv. |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120][k.n.keshavanarayana, j.] code of criminal procedure (crpc) - section 438, 439 - direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- the criminal petition is filed under section 438 of code of criminal procedure by the adv. for the petitioner praying that this hon'ble court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of criminal procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this hon'ble court may be his arrest in crime no.547/2011 of chitradurga police station, for the offence punishable under section 306 of the indian penal code.Code Contextecho "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]1. in this petition filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in crime no.547/ 2011 of chitradurga rural police station, registered for the offence punishable under section 306 of the indian penal code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.2. accordingly to the case of the prosecution, smt. hanumakka wife of mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. on the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. on coming.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Manjunatha Ready Son of Rama Reddy Vs the State of Kamataka - Citation 925445 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '925445', 'acts' => 'Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 306', 'appealno' => 'CRIMINAL PETITION No. 1622 of 2012', 'appellant' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy,', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Manjunatha Ready, Son of Rama Reddy. Vs. the State of KamatakA.', 'casenote' => '[K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 438, 439 - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest -- The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure by the adv. For the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of Criminal Procedure by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'Ble Court may be his arrest in Crime No.547/2011 of Chitradurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => 'Shri M.V.Hiremath, Adv.', 'counseldef' => '', 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2012-03-28', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => 'K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA, J.', 'judgement' => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.</p><p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.</p><p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.</p><p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.</p><p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.</p><p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,</p><p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.</p><p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,</p><p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.</p>', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => '', 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'The State of KamatakA.', 'sub' => 'Criminal', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $args = array( (int) 0 => '925445', (int) 1 => 'manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/925445/manjunatha-ready-son-rama-reddy-vs-state-kamataka' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking relief of anticipatory bail, The said petition was opposed by the State. Alter hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 03.02.20012 allowed the laid petition find granted relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to conditions. One of the condition wan that the order of anticipatory bail should be in force for a period of 30 days only and within that period of 30 days, the petitioner was directed to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court and if such application was filed within the specified period, he would be entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail rill the disposal of the case.', (int) 2 => '<p>The period of 30 days expired on 09.03.2012. However, the petitioner without approaching the Jurisdictional Court, seeking regular bail has presented this petition, inter and on the ground that the said condition is bad in law and is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of 'SUDDHARAJU SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHAR BHTRa reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 312. It is the contention refused on behalf of the petitioner that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court m the aforesaid, decision that once the relief of anticipatory bail is granted, it should continue to operate till the disposal of the case, unless the said relief is cancelled by the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it was contended that the aforesaid condition could not haw been imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also the contention raised that in the event of his complying with the said condition and his application were to be rejected by the Jurisdictional Court, he will not be in a position to seek further relief from higher Court, since he will not be able to approach the Sessions Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless he is injudicial Custody.', (int) 3 => '<p>3. The petition is opposed by the respondent - State.', (int) 4 => '<p>4. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.', (int) 5 => '<p>5. As could be seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/30011, the learned Sessions Judge alter recording the finding that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged held that the petitioner is entitled for relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition was allowed.. However, as noticed supra, the taamsl Judge imposed . condition retracting the operation of the order to a period of 30 days and the petitioner was directed to approach the regular Court seeking bail within that period. The Honble Apex Court in the case of 'Siddharam Sadlingappa Mhctre's COM, referred to supra has held that limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in fame and directing the person to surrender himself before the Police or before the Court, is against the object and the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it violates the fundamental right and liberty guaranteed under article I 21 of the Constitution of India, in the said decision, it is also held that the relief of anticipatory bail once granted. should normally continue till the conclusion of the trial of the case,', (int) 6 => '<p>6. Having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, the condition imposed by the ltiarned Sessions Judge limiting the relief of anticipatory bail and directing him to approach the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of his regular Court seeking bail is improper and illegal. The failure to appear before the Court and seek relief of regular bail, he is likely to be arrested is well founded. Having once found that the petitioner is entitled for the refer of anticipatory bail, in the light of the aforesaid decision, the question of limiting the relief in time does not arise. Therefore, the said condition cannot be sustained, as such the said condition is liable to be set aside.', (int) 7 => '<p>7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The condition imposed by the learned Sessions Judge in his order dated 03.02.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.759/2011 limiting the relief of anticipatory bail in time to an extent of 30 days and further directing the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Jurisdictional Court within the said period is hereby set aside. It is made clear that, as held by the Apex Court in the a to re no ted decision, the relief of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court shall continue till the completion of trial of the case, unless it is with drown in accordance with law,', (int) 8 => '<p>8. This Court has noticed that in large number of orders passed by the Sessions Judge and Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts, the decision of the Apex Court in the case of "Biddkaram BatnQappa Mhetrm vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2022 Supreme Court 312, referred to supra has been completely lost sight while granting the relief of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Registry is directed to bring to the notice of all the Sessions Judges including the Presiding Officers of Fast Tack Courts in the State about the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.', (int) 9 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 10 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109