Dismissed

The State of Karnataka v. Shrinivasa S.N @ Sheena

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2021CRL.P/1964/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 439(2) CrPC sought cancellation of bail granted to an accused charged with offences under Sections 341, 392, and 397 IPC. Although the State argued that the accused's prior escape disentitled him to bail, the Court found no ground to interfere given the ongoing trial and lack of violation of bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition under Section 439(2) CrPC is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to move similar applications to the trial court if the respondent violates bail conditions.

The State of Karnataka Vs Shrinivasa S.N @ Sheena — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1964 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CPI, SULLIA CIRCLE, SULLIA REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU -1. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶8

AND :

¶9

SHRINIVASA S. N. @ SHEENA, S/O. S.H. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.17 DEVARAJA BUILDING, BULLET KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT THINDLU, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU- 97. … RESPONDENT

¶10

(RESPONDENT IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON BAIL DATED 28.01.2019 IN S.C.NO.5006/2016 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 392, 397 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND DIRECT THAT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.

¶12

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner-State is before this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K.Mangaluru, Sitting at Puttur, D.K. vide order dated 28.01.2019 in S.C.No.5006/2016 and to permit the petitioner to take the respondent-accused No.1 into custody in Crime No.22/2013 of Sullia Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 392 and 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶16

Heard Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for the petitioner-State. Even though respondent is served, there is no representation on his behalf. Perused the materials on record.

¶17

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the respondent is arrayed as Accused No.1. He has committed the offence punishable under Sections 341, 392 and 397 read with Section 34 of IPC along with accused No.2. Initially he was apprehended on 15.10.2013 and was released

¶18

¶19

on bail on 18.11.2013. When the matter was pending for trial in S.C.No.5006/2016, the respondent remained absent and found to be absconded. NBW was issued by the trial Court. However, his presence could not be secured. Therefore, splitup charge sheet came to be filed and the matter was registered in S.C.No.5006/2016 on the file of the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru. In the meanwhile, the respondent was apprehended and he moved a petition for bail on 12.10.2018, which was considered by the trial Court on 28.01.2019. The respondent was ordered to be enlarged on bail. Aggrieved by the same, the State is before this Court seeking cancellation of bail. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the conduct and seriousness of the offence disentitles the respondent from getting released on bail. Therefore, the bail granted in favour of the respondent is to be recalled and cancelled.

¶20

The respondent/accused No.1 is served but remained absent.

¶21

The materials placed before the Court disclose that serious allegations are made against the respondent and

¶22

¶23

another accused for having committed the offences. The details furnished by the learned High Court Government Pleader regarding apprehension of the respondent and subsequently, he remaining absent before the Court disentitles the respondent from releasing on bail. However, the trial Court considering the application moved for seeking bail, allowed the same subject to conditions. Now the matter in pending before the trial Court in S.C.No.5006/2016. It is stated that witnesses are being examined before the trial Court. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the respondent is remaining absent or that he has violated any of the conditions imposed by the trial Court while enlarging him on bail. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move similar application before the trial Court, in case the respondent remains absent or violates any of the conditions mentioned during enlarging him on bail.

¶24

6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶25

Sd/JUDGE

¶26

NR/-

The State of Karnataka v. Shrinivasa S.N @ Sheena

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Shrinivasa S.N @ Sheena

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

K Madhu @ Mada Vs State of Karnataka by S.H.O.

Sri. Bharamappa K Vs State of Karnataka

John Nonso Egwu Vs State of Karnataka

Abhishek @ R.S. Abhishek Vs State by Kengeri Police Station

Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Joy B Vs the State by