Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Muttaphappa @ Muttu vs State Of Karnatka

High Court Of Karnataka|02 December, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO.1736/2019 BETWEEN MUTTAPHAPPA @ MUTTU S/O DARMANNA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS C/O OPP BRAMMALINGESWARA TEMPAL JOPADI, 4TH CROSS SANTHOSH NAGAR ATTURU LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 078 PERMANENTLY R/AT KANAKADASA CHOCK BALABATTI TANDA VILLAGE JEVARGI TALUK GULBARGA DISTRICT – 585 310 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. JEETHU R.S., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND STATE OF KARNATKA BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROHITH B.J, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.344/2017 OF YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss.363, 376 OF IPC AND U/S.4 AND 6 OF POCSO ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The order sheet discloses that, on 11.11.2019, the petitioner’s counsel has sought for permission of the court to retire from the case. But, the court directed him to inform the petitioner before retiring from the case and also directed the office to show the name of the petitioner in the cause-list.
Even today, though the matter is called twice since morning, the petitioner and his counsel remained absent. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
In the above circumstances, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Muttaphappa @ Muttu vs State Of Karnatka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
02 December, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra