The High Court at Bengaluru dismissed Criminal Petition No. 8031/2022 filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petition was rejected because the petitioner failed to comply with office objections despite sufficient opportunity.
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
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8031/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. M. SUNDER RAJ SON OF S. MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT #23, 4TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS SHAMANNA GOWDA LAYOUT HALASURU, BENGALURU NORTH HAL II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 008 ….PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA .B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.104/2022 OF HALASUR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
No representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Office objections have not been complied in spite of granting sufficient opportunity. Hence, the petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office
objections.
Sd/JUDGE
KGR* CT:NR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Petition for anticipatory bail should be allowed in view of non-compliance of office objections.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. M. Sunder Raj
The State
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
