Dismissed

Mr. Vijay Nandhan. B @ Pavan @ Vijay @ Anbu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jun 2021CRL.P/623/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, noting counsel unavailability for the petitioner and referencing a prior Division Bench judgment, held that a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC is not maintainable for offences under the Protection of Civil Rights Act. The petition was dismissed for lack of maintainability.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable; liberty granted to file appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

Mr. Vijay Nandhan. B @ Pavan @ Vijay @ Anbu Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 623/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.VIJAY NANDHAN B @PAVAN @VIJAY@ANBU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, S/O LATE BABU, R/AT NO.8, 3^RD CROSS, 4^TH MAIN, ABBAYAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, N.S.PALYA, B.G.ROAD, BANGALORE CITY.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A FEROZE NIZAM, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER MICOLAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE – 560 076. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTER, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

¶14

MR. LOKESH, S/O MR.SELVAM, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.805, NEAR DPA SANGHA, J.D. MARA SLUM, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 076.

¶15

..RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.148/2020 OF MICO LAYOUT P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143,144,147,148,302,506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.25(1)(1-B)(B) AND 27(3) OF INDIAN ARMS ACT AND SEC.3(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner is not present.

¶21

Counsel for the respondent No.2 appeared and submitted that the petition is not maintainable.

¶22

In view of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Crl.A.1078/2020 disposed of on 30.3.2021, the petitioner is required to file appeal under Section 14-

¶23

¶24

A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the criminal petition either under Section 438 or Section 439 is not maintainable.

¶25

Therefore, petition is dismissed as not maintainable, however liberty is granted to the petitioner to file appeal.

¶26

Office is hereby directed to return the original documents to learned counsel for the petitioner forthwith.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

cbc

Mr. Vijay Nandhan. B @ Pavan @ Vijay @ Anbu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vijay Nandhan. B @ Pavan @ Vijay @ Anbu v. 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

Chunu Hansadah Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash Das Vs the State of Karnataka

N Pavan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Chittaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mallikarjun Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath. B Vs the State of Karnataka