The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the criminal petition filed for enlargement of bail. The court observed that the petitioner failed to appear despite multiple notices and lack of prosecution, effectively granting relief previously to the trial court.
The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.292/2021
BETWEEN:
RAFEEQ KHAN @ MOHAMMED RAFEEQ @ RAFEEQ S/O LATE MOHAMMED AYUB AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT 8TH CROSS MASJID ROAD DEVASANDRA K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU CITY-560036 AND ALSO AT NO.12, 2ND CROSS MODI ROAD, D.J.HALLI BENGALURU NORTH-560045 … PETITIONER
(BY SRI PYAREJAN K.N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.112/2020, OF AMRUTHAHALLY P.S., BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 201, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 CL(2)(V) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This petition was filed on 08.01.2021. For the first time, this matter was listed on 11.01.2021, on that day, this Court directed the SPP to take notice for the first respondent/State and a week’s time was granted to secure the records and file the objections, also issued notice to respondent No.2, and ordered to list the matter in the next week. The matter was posted on 29.06.2021, on that day, none appeared for the petitioner. Inspite of notice, respondent No.2 was also not appeared before the Court and the matter was ordered to post next week. Again, the matter was listed on 25.09.2021, on that day also, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and today also, there is no representation in the morning session and also in the afternoon session.
3
matter and might have received the relief before the trial Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal petition for enlargement of bail on grounds of non-prosecution should be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rafeeq Khan @ Mohammed Rafeeq @ Rafeeq
State of Karnataka by SHO, Amruthahalli Police Station
Sathish S
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
