The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petitioner's successive bail petition regarding offences under IPC sections 302, 307, and others, rejecting family caretaking grounds due to the gravity of the charges.
Petition for enlargement on bail dismissed.
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 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5894 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI JAMEER @ SAMEER S/O MANSUR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: TAJ HOTEL OWNER, R/AT MAHADEVAPRASAD NAGAR, GUNDLUPET TOWN-571111
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUNDLUPET POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571313
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S.VISHWA MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.37/2020 (CR.NO.198/2020) OF GUNDLUPET P.S., CHAMARAJANAGAR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 143, 147, 148, 109, 504, 307, 341, 323, 324, 114, 326, 302, 506B, 212 R/W 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;
2
ORDER
This is a successive bail petition filed by the
petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.5 in S.C. No.37/2020 pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, arising out of Cr.No.198/2020 of Gundlupete Police Station.
praying to enlarge him on bail was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred two more petitions Crl.P.No.5988/2021 and Crl.P.No.202/2022, which came to be dismissed by this Court after considering the gravity of the offence committed, the nature of allegations, the overt act attributed against the petitioner herein and the material against him. The said two petitions were considered on merits as well as on medical grounds raised by the
3
petitioner. The fact of completion of the investigation and filing of charge sheet and granting bail to some of the other accused have been already considered in the prior petitions.
that the petitioner's father has lost eyesight and the petitioner's mother is not in a position to look after her husband and there is no other person in the family to look after his father and therefore, seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In view of the gravity of the offence committed, the above grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be taken into consideration to enlarge the petitioner on bail. There are no changed circumstances. Hence, petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
BH
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a successive bail petition can be allowed on the grounds that the petitioner's father lost eyesight and mother cannot look after him in view of the gravity of the offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Jameer @ Sameer
State of Karnataka
Mohammad Nawaz
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
