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

The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere pendency of one more case against the petitioner-accused itself cannot be treated as a criminal  antecedent so as to deny him bail.
This was seen in the case Sandeep Reddy v. State of Karnataka (CRIMINAL PETITION No.5740 OF 2022). The judgment was presided over by the Coram of the Justice V Srishananda.

Facts of the case-

In the present case, the petitioner was 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 in its arguments opposed the plea saying that there is one more case pending against the accused.


The High Court has held that “Just the pendency of one more case against the 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.

The court further noted that The petitioner is granted bail in the pending case where the trial is under progress and there is no complaint of misuse of the bail conditions by the accused.”
Following this, the bench granted bail to the accused on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000. It also imposed certain conditions.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement reviewed by Alaina Fatima.

Click here to view your Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *