Dismissed

A Arjun @ Kulla, v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024CRL.P/2309/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka considered a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners, having already been apprehended and granted regular bail which they violated, could not invoke Section 438 seeking bail on apprehension of arrest.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was dismissed.

A Arjun @ Kulla, Vs State of Karnataka by — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:27103 CRL.P No. 2309 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2309 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

A. ARJUN @ KULLA, S/O ANNA DURAI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. 24, 2ND A CROSS, JC ROAD, CEMENT COMPOUND, CHIKPETE, B.B.M.P (CENTRAL), BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶9

SATHISH @ THAVAKALE, S/O BALARAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT NO. 11, J.C. ROAD, CEMENT COMPOUND, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SMT. SWATHI R. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. JAYANTHI R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO NAMED PETITIONERS WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NOS.4 AND 5 MAY KINDLY BE RELEASED ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.50/2017 (C.C.NO.16092/2017) PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:27103 CRL.P No. 2309 of 2024

¶20

VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU PERTAINING TO THE KALASIPALYA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 399 AND 402 OF IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners-accused Nos.4 and 5 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.50/2017 of Kalasipalya Police Station, pending on the file of the learned 8^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru city, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Sri. Shashi K.R.

¶24

Heard Smt.Swathi R.Bhat, learned counsel for Smt.Jayanthi R., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶25

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:27103 CRL.P No. 2309 of 2024

¶28

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶29

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶30

The petitioners being accused Nos.4 and 5 are seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested.

¶31

Admittedly, the petitioners were apprehended and during investigation, they were enlarged on bail as per order dated 27.03.2017. It is also admitted that the petitioners have violated the conditions imposed while granting bail. The Trial Court has issued non-bailable warrant (NBW) and thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶32

Once the petitioners were already apprehended and granted regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., they could not have invoked Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension being arrested. There

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:27103 CRL.P No. 2309 of 2024

¶35

course open to the petitioners is to approach the Trial Court and therefore, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶37

negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is dismissed .

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

CPN CT: BHK

A Arjun @ Kulla, v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Arjun @ Kulla, v. State of Karnataka by

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. Revanna B Vs State of Karnataka

Ganesh @ Koti Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ashok Vs State by

Mohammed Aleem Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shrishail Vs the State by

Union Of India Vs Radhika Sehrai