DHARWAD CITY, KARNATAKA v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed,
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 419, 420
- Information Technology Act, 2000 ss. 66(C), 66(D)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. When the bail application came up for consideration on 7.3.2024, this Court taking note of the law laid down in Samdeep Varghese v. State B.A.No.1557 of 2024 -:3:- of Kerala [2010 (2) KHC 881], wherein it is held that this Court may not pass…
- Para 55. As the time period fixed by this Court in the order dated 7.3.2024 has already lapsed, I am of the definite view that nothing further survives in this bail application. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed, B.A.No.1557 of 2024 -:4:- without prejudice to the…
Judgment
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY KERALA POLICE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031 INSPECTOR OF POLICE CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI DHARWAD CITY, 2ND FLOOR, HUBBALLI SOUTH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION BUILDING, HUBBALLI P.O, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN - 580020 OTHER PRESENT: SR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT NEEMA T V THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.1557 of 2024 -:2:- Dated this the 22nd day of March,2024
O R D E R The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.7/2024 of the CEN Crime Police Station, Hubballi Dharwad City, Karnataka, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 419 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
When the bail application came up for consideration on 7.3.2024, this Court taking note of the law laid down in Samdeep Varghese v. State B.A.No.1557 of 2024 -:3:- of Kerala [2010 (2) KHC 881], wherein it is held that this Court may not pass orders of pre-arrest bail in cases which has been registered outside its territorial jurisdiction, directed the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioner for a period of two weeks, to enable the petitioner to workout his remedies, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the case is posted to today.
Heard; Sri. Vipin Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Neema T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
Operative part
As the time period fixed by this Court in the order dated 7.3.2024 has already lapsed, I am of the definite view that nothing further survives in this bail application. Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed, B.A.No.1557 of 2024 -:4:- without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to workout his remedies in accordance with law. rmm/22/3/2024 C.S.DIAS,JUDGE SD/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed,
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 419, 420; Information Technology Act, 2000 — ss. 66(C), 66(D).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.