The judiciary is placing peculiar conditions to grant bail, obviously due to the peculiar circumstances that are presented by accused these days.
One such condition is
4) He shall not apply for return of his passport till conclusion of trial.
Category: High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification
City Union Bank Vs Venugopal on 19 March, 2013
In this case, hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, has not done quash but ordered the case to be transferred to a different police station, as the original PS has no jurisdiction to investigate the case.
Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held in this revision order, that when the impugned order was not an order passed, as ex parte, the learned magistrate was required to hold as inquiry in a DV Case and then should have recorded his finding (to grant interim relief or not).
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Manjunath Reddy Vs Latha on 1 August, 2016
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka while rejecting this criminal petition, has held in this judgment that,
From Para 3,
Having regard to the object and scope of the legislation, the prescription of such enabling provision is obviously not to cramp the style of the court which requires to address the issues with some expedition. Therefore, the section providing that the court can form its own procedure, would also over-ride sub-section (1) of Section 28 to rule 6(5) of the Rules as well
This is from final Para,
Therefore, the present petition is misconceived and is rejected. The view taken by this court would also be relevant having regard to the circumstances of this case which has been hanging fire for the past two years in a matter which should have been summarily disposed of. Therefore, the court below is directed to expedite the proceedings and to deal mercilessly with any such applications filed by the petitioner.
K R Nandakumar Vs State Of Karnataka on 16 March, 2018
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that even though the marriage if deceased and the accused is registered, it is null and void, as the accused is already married to another woman and that marriage was subsiding.
If first wife is alive a second marriage is not permissible in the eye of law
S Praveen Vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2012
This is a border-case judgment, wherein Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has held so,
In the above facts and circumstances and with reference to the law as laid down by the apex court, for purposes of Section 498A of the IPC, though it may not be essential that a legally valid marriage is established, it was necessary to establish that the petitioner and the complainant had lived together as husband and wife. In this regard, there is sadly no evidence is forthcoming. Therefore, even the wider definition applied to the expressions ‘husband’ and ‘marriage’ with reference to the decisions of the apex court referred to hereinabove would not come to the aid of the prosecution.
Shreyas Sharma Vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2014
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in this order has held that
In this particular case, admittedly the police have not seized the Passport during the course of investigation. But at the time of granting bail the court has secured the Passport and kept it in the safe custody of the court and it amounts to retention of the said document and virtually amounts to impounding of the said document, which is prohibited under the above said provision of law and also in view of the decision of the Apex Court.
Krishna Munivenkatappa Vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2017
Not sure, what kind of judgment is this… Read and bare with it.
Dinakar Vs Krishnamurthy on 12 November, 2009
This case involves a retired DGP of Karnataka state regarding a murder of one Murugan who along with 2 others broke into DGP’s house on a fateful date. The petitioner Dinakar, on behalf of the said Muragun, has tried to file a case, but in vain. Hence he approached the Home Minister of Karnataka and NHRC ar Delhi. On this the DGP was aggrieved and filed a defamation case on Dinkar. Dinakar filed many applications at various fora praying that the defamation case be dismissed and in this regard he challenged the jurisdiction and power of taking cognizance of case by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which was brought before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the instant case.
There were interesting arguments and counter-arguments supported by judgments of various High Courts and their Division Benches and also Hon’ble Apex Court. Read on.
Rabiya Bi Kassim M. Vs The Country Wide Consumer on 5 April, 2004
In it held in this judgment from High Court of Karnataka that once arguments are completed and judgment is reserved for pronouncement for a future date, no new application of any nature can be allow by the Hon’ble Trial court.
The Sub-rule(4) of Order 18, Rule 2 reads as follows, that came into force in 1976 via Amendment Act, has been deleted via the CPC Amendment Act 1999, with effect from 1.7.2002
“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage”
The 1963 landmark judgment is here.
