Dismissed

Manju R S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Feb 2021CRL.P/7687/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a second appeal for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court held that alibi claims require proof at the charge sheet stage and police verification delays do not justify granting bail pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed; petitioner directed to cooperate with police and seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Manju R S Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7687 OF 2020

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MANJU R.S., S/O SWAMYGOWDA @ SANNASWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.123, RAMASANDRA MAIN ROAD, NEAR CHIKKABASTHI, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560060.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI MOHAN K.N., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R.PET RURAL POLICE STATION, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU CITY-01.

¶10

RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI VINAYAK, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.250/2020 REGISTERED BY K.R.PET RURAL POLICE STATION, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 323, 324, 354(B), 307, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION PERTAINING TO PRINCIPAL BENCH, BENGALURU, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

VIDEO CONFERENCING AT DHARWAD, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the Government Pleader. This is second application for anticipatory bail. On 12.10.2020, Criminal petition No.4952/2020 was partly allowed, anticipatory bail was granted to the parents of the petitioner herein and it was dismissed concerning the petitioner.

¶18

Sri Mohan K.N., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the alleged date of incident i.e. 07.09.2020, the petitioner was very much in Bengaluru and he had attended his duty in the factory. He has produced clippings of the CCTV footages and also a certificate issued by his employer. To ascertain the genuineness of these documents, the respondent was directed to obtain information from the concerned police. Inspite of giving sufficient time, the respondent failed to give a report.

¶19

: 3 :

¶20

Sri Mohan K.N. submits that these CCTV

¶21

footages and the certificate dated 06.01.2021 clearly show that the petitioner was very much in Bengaluru and therefore his involvement in the alleged offences is not forthcoming. There is false application.

¶22

It is true that the respondent failed to give a report about the CCTV footages and the certificate issued by KYMS HITECH UPVC WINDOWS AND DOORS, where the petitioner is said to be working. Merely for this reason, it cannot be said that petition for anticipatory bail can be granted. The ground that the petitioner has taken is nothing but alibi. The investigation is not yet completed. If according to the petitioner, he was not present where the alleged incident is said to have taken place, the petitioner has to prove it in case charge sheet is filed against him. Therefore, I don’t find a good ground for granting anticipatory bail. He has to cooperate with the police for completing the investigation. He may surrender before the concerned court and move for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. If the application is filed under

¶23

: 4 :

¶24

Section 439 Cr.P.C. the same may be disposed of

¶25

expeditiously by the concerned Sessions Court. With these

¶26

observations, the petition is dismissed.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

CLK

Manju R S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju R S 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

Sri.Hanamanth Siddappa Murnal Vs Smt.Seetavva W/O Girimallapa Muttur

Sri. Bhimappa S/O Basappa Bidargaddi Vs Govindappa S/O Mushappa Bidaragaddi

Smt. Gangawa W/O Chandrashekarappa Abbigeri Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Zameer @ Bacchan Vs State of Karnataka

Tukaram S/O Satappa Horatti Vs Rukmawwa W/O Mallappa Bhadrashetti

Arjuna Vs State by