Dismissed

Abhishek N @ Abhi @ Kalla Abhi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2022CRL.P/1227/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka considered a criminal petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in a case involving cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The court refused bail, citing the petitioner's criminal antecedents and prior dismissal of a similar petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; direction issued to trial court to expedite trial.

Abhishek N @ Abhi @ Kalla Abhi Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1227/2022

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

ABHISHEK N @ ABHI @ KALLA ABHI S/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT # 16, 8^TH CROSS JAI MARUTHI NAGARA NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 78

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI:PRATHEEP K.C - ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY RMC YARD POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI: V.S VINAYAKA - HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.146/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 120B, 397 OF IPC PENDING ON THE LXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH – 64).

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in Cr.No.146/2020 of

¶20

R.M.C Yard Police Station, pending in CCH-64 S.C.No.188/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 397 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) on the basis of first information lodged by the informant.

¶21

Heard Sri.Pratheep K.C, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.V.S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had approached this Court seeking similar relief in Crl.P.No.7405/2021. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2021. The petitioner was apprehended on 11.11.2020 and since then he is in Judicial Custody. Accused Nos.2 to 4 have been already enlarged on bail. Investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. Since Accused Nos.2 to 4 against whom serious allegations

¶23

¶24

are made have already been enlarged on bail, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principles of parity. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that similar petition was filed by the petitioner and the same came to be dismissed on merits. There are no changed circumstances to entertain the present petition. He also submits that, he is a habitual offender having criminal antecedents and other similar cases are also registered against him. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned

¶27

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶28

¶29

“Whether the petitioner is entitled

¶30

for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶31

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶32

R E A S O N S

¶33

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking similar relief in Crl.P.No.7405/2021 and the same came to be dismissed vide order dt:16.12.2021. Serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offence. As per the charge sheet a sum of Rs.15,000/- was recovered at the instance of the present petitioner, which he said to have extracted at the time of commission of offence, from the informant. Accused Nos.2 to 4 against whom similar allegations are made are already enlarged on bail. However, the plea of the petitioner was rejected, as it is brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and as many as eight other criminal cases were registered against the petitioner for commission of similar offences like under Sections 384, 379, 392, 393, 364A, 384 and 506 of IPC. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the earlier petition came to be dismissed. There are no

¶34

¶35

changed circumstances urged by the petitioner, except stating that the petitioner is in judicial custody. The matter is already committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶36

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought directions to the trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude the trial.

¶37

Since the petitioner is in judicial custody, the trial Court may expedite the trial and dispose of the matter at the earliest.

¶38

It is needless to observe that both the prosecution and the accused are required to cooperate with the trial Court in expediting the trial and for disposal of the matter.

¶39

In view of the above reasons, the petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Abhishek N @ Abhi @ Kalla Abhi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek N @ Abhi @ Kalla Abhi 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

Laxman Vs the State

Mohammed Irfan @ Chapper Irfan Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vanajakshi Vs State of Karnataka by

Raghava M Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashraf Vs State by Moodabidre Police

Balakrishna v Vs State of Karnataka