SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23685

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J
VIJAYAKUMAR YALLAPPA GUDASALAMANI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103820 OF 2025 | 438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S. , SRI. SACHIN BHARAT
For the Respondents: SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL

Anticipatory bail can be denied if a party fails to appear in court following previous bail grants.

Headnote:This judgment pertains to Criminal Petition No. 103820 of 2025 filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482 of the BNSS. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail concerning C.C. No.35 of 2025 arising out of Crime No.74 of 2017 for various offences under IPC. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously been granted anticipatory bail, but due to non-appearance, a split case was registered. Thus, the Court found the second bail petition to be unmaintainable and dismissed it.

Table of Content
1. learned hcgp is directed to take notice. (Para 1)
2. previous bail granted, reasons for current application noted. (Para 3)

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for respondent.

2. The petitioner is before this Court under Section

482 of the BNSS , 2023 seeking anticipatory bail in C.C. No.35 of 2025 arising out of Crime No.74 of 2017 registered by Mulagund Police Station, Gadag District for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 353, 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

3. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the petitioner was earlier granted anticipatory bail in this case by the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.278 of 2022, which was disposed of on 03.08.2022. For the reason that the petitioner had not appeared before the trial Court on the regular dates of hearing, a split-up case was registered against him and coercive steps were taken to secure his presence. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a fresh anticipatory bail application before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.153 of 2025, which was rejected on 28.04.2025. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the proclamation orders have been already issued against the petitioner.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top