Allowed

Mr. M Inder Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2021CRL.P/5360/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bangalore High Court allowed a criminal bench petition filed by an accused cinema producer seeking modification of bail conditions. The court lifted the restriction against moving outside its jurisdiction to facilitate business activities and salary payments in Chennai, while retaining a condition against leaving the country without permission.

What did the court decide?

Condition No.(vii) of the previous bail order modified to permit the petitioner to leave the court's jurisdiction for business activities within India.

Mr. M Inder Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5360 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. M. INDER KUMAR S/O. R.M. KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.34, ‘INDERILLAM’ 1^ST FLOOR, PIONEER DEFENCE HOUSING COLONY, ADARSHA NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(1)(b) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY MODIFYING CONDITION NO.(vii) OF THE ORDER DATED 16-6-2021 PASSED IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3967 OF 2021 AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 439(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for modification of condition No.(vii) in the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3967 of 2021 dated 16-6-2021.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

This Court while granting bail to the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.3967 of 2021 dated 16-6-2021 imposed condition No.(vii) as under:

¶23

“vii) Petitioners-accused No.4 and 2 shall take up the trial and shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.”

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Producer in cinema and his business head-quarters is at Chennai. The petitioner has to pay salaries to Artists and other employees working under his production and hence, he has to go for Chennai for dayto-day business activities. If condition No.(vii) is not modified, Artists and employees working under his production will be put into hardship and loss. Therefore, he prayed for modification of condition No.(vii).

¶26

Learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the same.

¶27

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, this Court granted bail to the petitioner, who was in jail for long time. After investigation, the Police have filed charge-sheet. The petitioner is a cinema Producer and his business head-quarters is at Chennai. Registration Certificate is produced at Annexure-B and the place of address is 6J, 136, Ceebros Shyamala, Arcot

¶28

¶29

Road, Saligramam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600093. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has to visit Chennai for day-to-day affairs of the business for providing salaries to Artists and employees working under his production. Presence of the petitioner may be required at Chennai. Therefore, condition No.(vii) imposed on the petitioner is required to be modified.

¶30

Accordingly, the petition is allowed . Condition

¶31

No.(vii) imposed in Criminal Petition No.3967 of 2021 dated 16-6-2021 is hereby modified as the petitioneraccused No.2 is permitted to leave the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of business activities in Chennai or other places in India, but he shall not leave the country without prior permission.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

kvk

Mr. M Inder Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. M Inder Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Narayana Gowda Vs Union of India

Sri R Srinivasa Raju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G K Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Arun Kumar Vs the Police Inspector

Mr Praveen Kumar B B Vs Mrs Nivitha

Sri Suryaprakash Singapur Vs the State of Karnataka