Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 79934 (KAR)

PRATHAP K @ KURI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/12938/2025 · 2025-11-12

Shivashankar Amarannavar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46145 CRL.P No. 12938 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12938 OF 2025 (439(Cr.PC) / 483(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PRATHAP K @ KURI S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT 10TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, KANTEERAV NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE CITY – 560 017. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASHA K V., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RMC YARD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 (FILED U/S.483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.191/2018 (S.C.NO.35/2020) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 399, 402 R/W SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE REGISTERED BY RMC Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46145 CRL.P No. 12938 of 2025 YARD POLICE, BENGALURU PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS SPECIAL JUDGE BENGALURU C/C LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-62), AS SUCH TERMS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO IMPOSE, TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner -accused No.4 under Section 483 of BNSS praying to grant bail in Crime No.191/2018 of R.M.C Yard Police Station registered for offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 r/w Section 34 IPC pending in S.C.No.35/2020 on the file of LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner due to COVID has not appeared in the sessions case. On 17.01.2023 he appeared and got recalled NBW. The petitioner was under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46145 CRL.P No. 12938 of 2025 the impression that he will receive Court notice and thereafter, he has to appear and therefore, he has not appeared before the Court. The petitioner has been secured by executing NBW on 10.07.2025 and from that day he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is ready to appear before the trial Court and ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. With this, he prayed to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent –State would contend that due to the absence of this petitioner, the trial is not progressed. There are no reasons assigned by the petitioner for his absence for 02 years 06 months. If the petitioner is again granted bail, he will remain absent and it will hamper the progress of the case. With this, she prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46145 CRL.P No. 12938 of 2025 6. The petitioner is facing trial for offences under Section 399, 402 read with Section 34 of IPC in S.C.No.35/2020 pending on the file of LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. The petitioner has been granted bail on 26.06.2018. After committal of the case, the petitioner appeared before the Sessions Court and subsequently he remained absent on 07.12.2021 and NBW has been issued against him. The petitioner got recalled the said NBW issued against him. The petitioner did the same and again recalled the NBW issued against him. The petitioner remained absent from 18.01.2023 till he was secured on 10.07.2025 for a period of 02 years 06 months. Due to the absence of the petitioner, the case has not been progressed. The case is of the year 2020. The reason assigned is that he was awaiting Court notice. The petitioner has not assigned any acceptable reasons for his absence for 02 years 06 months. Considering the above aspects, there are no grounds for grant of bail. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46145 CRL.P No. 12938 of 2025 7. In the result, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13