Dismissed

M. Vinutha v. Narendra Babu

Karnataka HC5 Jan 2017CRL.P/5339/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a criminal petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail on grounds of alleged violation of conditions. No investigation report existed. Petition deemed premature with liberty to file later if violation proven.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as premature due to lack of investigation report; liberty granted to file again if violation is established.

M. Vinutha Vs Narendra Babu — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5339 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M. Vinutha, Wife of Narendra Babu, Aged about 34 years, Residing at No.7, 4^th Temple Road, Siddanthi Block, Kondandaramapura, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru – 560 003.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Chandrashekara K.A., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Narendra Babu, Son of Muniyappa, Aged about 35 years, Residing at No.101/23, 14^th and 15^th Cross, Margosa Road, Malleshwaram,

¶13

¶14

Bengaluru – 560 003.

¶15

The State of Karnataka, By the Police of Vyalikaval Police Station, Bengaluru – 560 003. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001. …RESPONDENTS

¶16

(By Shri B.K.Mohan, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government Pleader for Respondent No.2)

¶17

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439(2) of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to cancel the order dated 18.2.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court vide Criminal Petition No.487/2016 in favour of the first respondent.

¶19

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The present petition is filed by the complainant seeking

¶22

cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted in favour of

¶23

Respondent No.1 on the ground that he has violated two of the conditions, namely that the petitioner was not to hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner.

¶24

¶25

Secondly, he was not to threaten the victim, namely the complainant or her relatives in any manner.

¶26

On both these counts, it is the case of the petitioner

¶27

that the petitioner has repeatedly tried to threaten the witnesses and also has threatened the petitioner. In this regard, a complaint has been lodged in respect of which there is an investigation on.

¶28

However, there is no investigation report on the basis of which it could be accepted that the petitioner had indeed held

¶29

out threats to the petitioner or her witnesses. Therefore, the present petition is premature and is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a similar petition if it is established on the face of it that Respondent No.1 was guilty of violating the conditions imposed as aforesaid. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Sd/- JUDGE

¶31

M. Vinutha v. Narendra Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Vinutha v. Narendra Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri C P Yogeshwara Vs the Income Tax Department

Shri. C.P. Gangadhareshwara Vs the Income Tax Department

Megacity (Bangalore Builders & Developers Vs the Income Tax Department

Sri P Vedamurthy Vs Smt Vanitha

A. Narayana Rao Vs the State

Sulthana Khanum @ Sulthana Vs State of Karnataka