High Court of Karnataka Allows Withdrawal of Bail Petition in Rape and Cheating Case as Not Pressed. Petitioner's counsel sought withdrawal of bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC and Section 66-B IT Act, and the court permitted withdrawal without adjudication on merits.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 181
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Rakesh B, filed a criminal petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking bail in Crime No.87/2020 registered by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, had earlier dismissed the bail petition on 19.05.2020 in C.Crl.Misc.No.111/2020. Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition as not pressed. The court allowed the memo and disposed of the petition as withdrawn. No arguments on merits were heard, and the court did not adjudicate the bail application on its merits. The order was passed by Justice Krishna S. Dixit on 10th July 2020.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Withdrawal of Petition - Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in Crime No.87/2020 for offences under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC and Section 66-B of IT Act - Counsel filed memo seeking permission to withdraw petition as not pressed - Court permitted withdrawal and disposed petition as withdrawn - Held that petition stands disposed off as withdrawn as not pressed (Para 2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC and Section 66-B of IT Act

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is disposed off as withdrawn as not pressed in terms of the memo filed.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of petition as not pressed
  • Disposal without adjudication on merits
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 246

Criminal Petition No. 3105 of 2020

2020-07-10

Justice Krishna S. Dixit

Sri. Shreeram Timmappa Nayak

Sri Rakesh B

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 Crime No.87/2020

Filing Reason

Petitioner was arrested for offences under Sections 376, 420, 506 IPC and Section 66-B IT Act; his earlier bail petition was dismissed by the Sessions Court.

Previous Decisions

The LIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissed the bail petition on 19.05.2020 in C.Crl.Misc.No.111/2020.

Issues

Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition as not pressed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the withdrawal of the petition without adjudicating on the merits of the bail application.

Judgment Excerpts

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition as not pressed. Accordingly, petition stands disposed off as having been withdrawn as not pressed in terms of the memo filed.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before the High Court after the Sessions Court dismissed his earlier bail petition on 19.05.2020. Before the High Court, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition as not pressed, and the court allowed the withdrawal.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 439
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 376, 420, 506
  • Information Technology Act, 2000: 66-B
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Employer's Challenge to Interim Stay on Transfer Orders in Unfair Labour Practice Case. Transfer of Workmen During Pendency of Industrial Disputes Constitutes Prima Facie Unfair Labour Practice Under MRTU & PULP Act.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Minister's Order Declaring Aakarphod Patrak Infructuous — Primacy of Hissa Form No.4 Over Mutation Entries Upheld. Cancellation of Mutation Entry No.3342 Does Not Invalidate Sub-Division Created by Aaka...