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

Sri Yogananda B G vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|22 October, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5286 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
SRI YOGANANDA B.G., S/O SIDDAGANGAMMA, R/AT HOUSE NO.453, 3RD CROSS, B.E.M.L.COMPLEX, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADV.[ABSENT]) AND 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
2 . SMT. B RADHAMMA W/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.85-86, SREENIDHI NRUPATHUNGA EXTENSION, 3RD MAIN,"A" CROSS, SHETTIHALLI ROAD, TUMKUR.
3 . SMT. G PADMA PRIYADARSHINI W/O N DILIP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.89, SHAKTHIGANAPATHI NAGAR, BASAVESHWARANAGAR 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560 079.
4 . SRI G GOVINDAIAH S/O LATE GANGAVENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.85-86, SREENIDHI, NRUPATHUNGA EXTENSION, 3RD MAIN, "A" CROSS, SHETTIHALLI ROAD, TUMKUR.
5 . SRI PURUSHOTHAM S/O G GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.85-86, SREENIDHI NRUPATHUNGA EXTENSION, 3RD MAIN,"A" CROSS, SHETTIHALLI ROAD, TUMKUR.
(BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 IN CRL.MISC.NO. 3750, 3978, AND 3979/2018 ON 13.06.2018 PASSED BY THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.183/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 304B READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Notice was issued to the respondents 2 to 5 on 18.03.2019. But in spite of granting time for paying fresh Process Fee, Petition Copy and Annexures for issuance of notice to respondent Nos.2 to 5, office objections have not been complied. Thereafter on two occasions time has been granted to do the needful but there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner even for seeking any adjournment.
2. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, no purpose would be served in simply adjourning the case. Hence, petition is dismissed for non-furnishing of Process Fee and Petition Copies, etc..
Sd/- JUDGE Sbs*
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

Sri Yogananda B G vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
22 October, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra