Dismissed

G. Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2022CRL.P/6484/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka heard a successive anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejecting earlier bail requests. The Court observed the petitioner's claim of ill-health but dismissed the petition, stating the petitioner could surrender through counsel or approach the court for regular bail after a formal hospital arrest.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner dismissed; liberty to surrender through counsel; prosecution permitted formal hospital arrest; no interim bail granted.

G. Ravi Vs State of Karnataka — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6484/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

G. RAVI, S/O. LATE GURURAJ AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, ADDRESS AS PER FIR: #376/1 NEW SAYAJJIRAO ROAD, OPP. TO MAHANADIKESH PRESS, AGRARA, MYSURU CITY-570 001.

¶8

RESIDING AT:NO.19/16, BOGADI 2^ND STAGE, BANKERS EMPLOYEES COLONY, PUTTEGOWDA LAYOUT, MYSURU-570 026. …PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.G. BHAGAVAN., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KUVEMPUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MYSURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI RAHUL RAI.K., HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.2/2022 OF KUVEMPUNAGAR P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.34, 420, 468, 471 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, JLB ROAD, MYSURU.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard Sri.S.G.Bhagvan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K., learned HCGP.

¶19

This is the successive anticipatory bail petition

¶20

filed by the petitioner.

¶21

Earlier this Court rejected the anticipatory bail at the request of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unable to surrender before the Court on account of his ill-health. If that be so, he is at liberty to surrender through the counsel by filing the necessary application before the jurisdictional Court. If such application is filed, the prosecution is at liberty to make a formal arrest of the petitioner in the hospital itself, details of

¶22

¶23

which would be furnished by the petitioner to the jurisdictional Court and thereafter the petitioner may approach the Court for grant of regular bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

With these observations the petition stands dismissed.

¶25

Sd/JUDGE

¶26

G. Ravi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Ravi 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. Renukappa Vs Smt. Sarvamangala

Mr. Nooruddin Vs Mrs. Talath Ismail

Sri Mohammed Afroz Vs Sri Basheer Khan

Bangalore Dor-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Ningaswamy G.N

Kendaganna Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Uma Vs Smt Susheelamma