Allowed

The State of West Bengal by v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2021WP/20782/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State of West Bengal filed a writ petition challenging an order granting interim anticipatory bail by a Karnataka Sessions Judge in an FIR registered in Kolkata. The High Court of Karnataka quashed the impugned order and directed the trial court to treat the matter as a transit bail application due to lack of territorial jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is directed to dispose of Crl.Misc.No.1634/2021 treating it as a petition for transitory anticipatory bail.

The State of West Bengal by Vs the State of Karnataka by — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.20782 OF 2021(GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

The State of West Bengal by The Station House Officer, Mr. Sunirmal Roy, Son of late Chandi Kinkar Roy, Aged about 53 years, Cyber Police Station, No.18, Lal Bazaar, Kolkata-700001.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Tomy Sebastian, Senior Counsel for Sri Rishi Sanjay Chugh, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka by Station House Officer, Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru-560004. Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560001.

¶12

The State of Karnataka by Station House Officer, Koramangala Police Station, Bengaluru-560095. Represented by the

¶13

:: 2 ::

¶14

State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bengaluru-560001.

¶15

Mr. B.Bavadeep Reddy, (Wrongly mentioned as Mr. B.Basavadeep Reddy), Director of M/s. Invictus Realty Private Limited, R/at No.84, 2^nd Floor, R.V.Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560004.

¶16

Ms. S.Vishalakshi, Director of M/s. Invictus Realty Private Limited, R/at Flat No.303, Indus Vogue Apartments, V.R.Layout, 1^st Main Koramangala, 6^th Block, Bengaluru-560095.

¶17

…Respondents

¶18

(By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1 & R2; Sri Prince Isac, Advocate for R3 & R4)

¶19

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of The Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the order dated 15.02.2021 passed by the Hon’ble LVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, at Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1634 of 2021, granting interim anticipatory bail to the R3 and R4 vide Annexure-A.

¶20

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶21

:: 3 ::

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶24

and the counsel for respondent no.3 and 4. Heard the Government Pleader also.

¶25

The petitioner in this writ petition is the State of West Bengal. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.2.2021 passed by 56^th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.1634/2021 granting interim anticipatory bail to respondent no.3 and 4 as per Annexure ‘A’; the orders dated 26.2.2021 and 18.8.2021 passed by the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in the said case. He has also sought quashing of the proceedings in

¶26

Crl.Misc.P.1634/2021 pending on the file of the same court.

¶27

:: 4 ::

¶28

The facts are that in relation to an FIR

¶29

registered at Cyber Police Station, Lal Bazar, Kolkata in Cr.No.130/2019 on 23.12.2019, respondent 3 and 4 approached the court at Bengaluru for anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge granted interim anticipatory bail by order dated 15.2.2021 and then ordered for issuance of notice to the petitioner and other respondents therein.

¶30

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri. Tomy Sebastian, submits that the court at Bengaluru should not have entertained the petition for anticipatory bail in relation to the crime which is said to have taken place in the jurisdiction of Kolkata court. At best the court could have entertained an application for transit bail. Therefore necessary direction may be given now to the Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru to treat the Crl.Misc.P.No.1634/2021 as

¶31

:: 5 ::

¶32

filed for transit anticipatory bail. He also submits

¶33

that the City Civil and Sessions Judge while granting interim anticipatory bail has committed an error in not imposing any condition on the respondents 3 and 4.

¶34

Sri. Prince Isac, learned counsel for the

¶35

respondents 3 and 4 submits that the petitioner has already appeared before the Sessions Court, Bengaluru and has taken time to file statement of objections. In this view, this writ petition has become infructuous.

¶36

Whatever may be the contentions of

¶37

respondents 3 and 4, it is to be stated that the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru could not have entertained the petition for anticipatory bail in regard to the offence said to have taken place within the jurisdiction of Kolkata court registered by the Cyber Police Station, Lal Bazar, Kolkata. The respondents 3 and 4 ought to

¶38

:: 6 ::

¶39

have approached the court at Kolkata for

¶40

anticipatory bail and in the meantime if they had apprehension of arrest, the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru would only grant a transit bail. In this view, I find force in the argument of Sri. Tomy Sebastian, Senior counsel for the petitioner.

¶41

If the impugned order is perused, it appears that the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru has granted interim anticipatory bail without limiting for a particular duration and without imposing conditions. Interim anticipatory bail is granted for limited time duration. It should also include conditions. These are the infirmities that can be noticed in the impugned order.

¶42

For the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The 56^th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, CCH.57, is hereby directed to

¶43

:: 7 ::

¶44

disposed of Crl.Misc.No.1634/2021 treating it as a

¶45

petition for transitory anticipatory bail.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

The State of West Bengal by v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of West Bengal by v. the State of Karnataka by

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 Pattabhiraman Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekar @Soma Vs State by

Sri Alok Bansal Vs State of Karnataka

T P Kari Gowda Vs the State by Acb Police

Smt. Kavya K M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shivaprasad Vs State by