IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.3674 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CID, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
3. MR. RAJENDRA D.S., DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE CID, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.
4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER AND THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 003.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI ASHOK N. NAIK, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) AND:
EARAMALLAPPA SON OF LATE BILLA MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26, 2ND CROSS, CAUVERY NAGAR, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU-572 106.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR R.P., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.33202 OF 2016 (GM-RES) ***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 22-7-2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.33202 of 2016, while rejecting the Writ Petition, however granting liberty to the writ petitioner to seek for bail, the State have filed this appeal.
2. It is presently submitted at the Bar, that subsequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the investigation was concluded and a charge sheet has already been filed. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the bail application initially, filed subsequent to the order passed by the learned Single Judge was rejected. After the charge sheet was filed and an application was moved, this Court has ultimately granted him bail. However, the grievance of the appellants is that certain observations have been made by the learned Single Judge which would affect the case of the prosecution, at the stage of trial.
3. On considering the contentions, we are of the view that the trial court should not be influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Single Judge herein. That any observations made by the learned Single Judge is only to the extent of disposal of the Writ Petition. None of the observations made by the learned Single Judge would have any bearing on the trial court.
Writ Appeal is disposed off with these observations.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE rsk/-