AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 280 wordsV. Jagannathan, J.—Heard both sides in respect of petition fied u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Petitioner''s Counsel submits that though the trial court granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, it imposed a condition that Petitioner shall surrender before the Court at Bangalore within two weeks from the date of the order and then move for regular bail, but the above condition could not be fulfilled by the Petitioner as there was an order passed by the Chennai Court which require the Petitioner to attend the police station everyday at 10 a.m. Under these circumstances. now the Petitioner seeks grant of bail or to extend the time given by the trial court by four weeks.
On the other hand, submission of the learned Addl. S.P.P. for the State is that, the Petitioner has violated condition No. 1 imposed by the court below and therefore, now by the impugned order, the trial court refused to grant the relief sought for by the Petitioner.
Having thus heard both sides and on perusal of the order passed fey the trial court while granting anticipatory bail am also by the Court at Chennai, the Petitioner could have brought to the notice of the trial court about his presence everyday before the police at Chennai. As he has violated, condition No. 1 of the bail order, the trial court therefore declined to consider the request for expansion of the period.
Under the above circumstances, the question of extending time does not arise and following the violation of condition No. 1 by the Petitioner, this Court cannot entertain the request to extend time by four weeks.
Petition is rejected accordingly.
