Dismissed

Shri Murali K M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2022CRL.P/9996/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Criminal Court in Chikkaballapura entertained a bail petition under CrPC s.439 for offences under IPC 376 and POCSO. The petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition and expedited disposal. The court dismissed the petition and directed the Sachivalayam of the Special Judge to conclude the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; Additional District and Sessions Judge directed to dispose of the matfter within six months.

Shri Murali K M Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9996/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. MURALI .K.M S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 29 YEARS R/AT KANCHEPALLI CHILAKALANERPU HOBLI CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563 125

¶9

….PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH .B.R, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHINTAMANI RURAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

NARAYANA SWAMY A.C. HEAD MASTER GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, KAGATHI CHINTAMANI TALUK-563 125

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.547/2021 OF CHINTAMANI RURAL P.S., CHICKABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376(2)(n) OF IPC AND SEC.6 AND 8 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.9, 10 AND 11 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-1, CHICKABALLAPURA IN SPL.S.C.NO.28/2022.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Having argued the matter for some time the

¶21

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition and necessary directions may be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the matter at the earliest stage.

¶22

Submission is placed on record.

¶23

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as

¶24

withdrawn.

¶25

It is evident that complainant/victim is

¶26

already examined. There are only 15 witnesses cited in

¶27

¶28

the charge sheet. Further the complainant is examined as Pw.2 partly.

¶29

Looking to these facts and circumstances, it is evident that the matter can be concluded at the earliest stage. Hence, the learned Spl. Judge is directed to dispose of the entire matter within 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

NS CT:NR

Shri Murali K M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Murali K M 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Regional Manager Vs Sandhya

Mr Sunil Alias Sundili Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Rizwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rajina Vs State of Karnataka

Imran Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narrendra D Devanga Vs the State of Karnataka