Mere Pendency Of One More Case Against Accused Itself Can't Be Treated As Criminal Antecedent To Deny Bail: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Sandeep Reddy and granted him bail. Reddy has been charged for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC (Punishment for dacoity). He had approached the court seeking bail on the ground of parity, stating that co-accused in the case have been granted bail.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying that there is one more case pending against the petitioner-accused. To which the court said,

"Mere pendency of one more case against the petitioner-accused itself cannot be treated as a criminal antecedent so as to deny bail to the petitioner-accused by resorting to the special powers conferred to this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C."

It added,

"Further, the petitioner is granted bail in the pending case where the trial is under progress and there is no complaint of mis-use of the bail conditions by the petitioner-accused."

Accordingly it granted bail to the accused on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000, with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. It also imposed certain other conditions.

Case Title: SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5740 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

Date of Order: 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

Appearance: Advocate ISMAIL MUNEEB MUSBA for petitioner; H S SHANKAR, HCGP for respondent

Click Here To Read/Download Order