High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Bail Petition as Withdrawn After Petitioner Granted Bail in Connected Case. Petitioner's counsel sought withdrawal of bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as petitioner already enlarged on bail in connected matter.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 137
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Nandisha, filed a Criminal Petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in Crime No.131/2020 registered at Ajjampura Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 144, 354B, 427, 307, 269, 270, 271, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The matter came up before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, presided over by Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar, on July 10, 2020, via video conferencing. At the hearing, the petitioner's counsel, Sri H.P. Veerabhadraswamy, submitted that the petitioner had already been granted bail in a connected case and therefore wished to withdraw the present petition. The court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. No further orders were passed on merits. The respondent, State of Karnataka, was represented by Smt. K.P. Yashodha, High Court Government Pleader.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Withdrawal of Petition - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner sought bail in Cr.No.131/2020 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 144, 354B, 427, 307, 269, 270, 271, 504 read with Section 149 IPC - Petitioner's counsel submitted that petitioner had already been granted bail in a connected case and sought withdrawal - Court permitted withdrawal and dismissed the petition as withdrawn - Held that petition dismissed as withdrawn (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in Cr.No.131/2020 for multiple offences under IPC

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Law Points

  • Bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed as withdrawn when petitioner already granted bail in connected case
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 94

Criminal Petition No.2884 of 2020

2020-07-10

Sreenivas Harish Kumar

Sri H.P. Veerabhadraswamy (for petitioner), Smt. K.P. Yashodha (HCGP for respondent)

Nandisha

The State of Karnataka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought enlargement on bail in Cr.No.131/2020 of Ajjampura Police Station.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was arrested in connection with multiple IPC offences and sought bail.

Previous Decisions

Petitioner had already been granted bail in a connected case.

Issues

Whether the bail petition should be allowed or dismissed as withdrawn.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel submitted that petitioner had been granted bail in a connected case and sought withdrawal of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

A bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. can be withdrawn if the petitioner has already obtained bail in a connected case, and the court may dismiss the petition as withdrawn without adjudicating on merits.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner has been granted bail in connected case and therefore he wants to withdraw this petition. This petition is accordingly dismissed.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.2884 of 2020 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Cr.No.131/2020. On the date of hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought withdrawal on the ground that the petitioner had already been granted bail in a connected case. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 144, 354B, 427, 307, 269, 270, 271, 504, 149
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Developers' Challenge to PMC's Differential Development Charges Policy. Held that imposing higher development charges on properties within 100 meters of DP road while exempting others violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petitioner in Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act Land Reservation Lapsing Case. Reservation Deemed Lapsed as Planning Authority Failed to Acquire Land Within 24 Months After Section 127 Notice.