Petitioners filed a bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. but their counsel was absent. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of prosecution. No legal principles were articulated.
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 31st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8128 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.18 PIPE LINE ROAD, 2ND CROSS 3RD STAGE, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE-560 079.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRADEEP KUMAR.K.N., ADVOCATE) (ABSENT)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
… RESPONDENT
2
(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) (PH)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.84/2022 OF RAJAJINAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 395,397 OF IPC AND SECTION 25(1)(B)(b)4 OF ARMS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The learned counsel for petitioners absent.
The order sheet disclose that all along the learned counsel for petitioners is regularly absent and there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
Hence, it appears that petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence petition stands dismissed for non prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
VS
Syed Rizwan
Syed Fayzan
State of Karnataka
Rajendra Badamikar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
