T Narasimhalu vs. State Of Karnataka

Held

The Court noted that the criminal petition was listed for orders. However, upon being called for hearing, neither the petitioner nor their counsel was present, and no representation was made on their behalf. The Court inferred from this absence that the petitioner had no interest in prosecuting the case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. No findings were made on the merits of the case or the legal issues raised in the petition, as the dismissal was procedural.

Facts

The petitioner, T. Narasimhalu, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. The bail was sought in relation to summons issued by the respondent, the State of Karnataka, represented by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax (E.N.F), South Zone. The summons was issued on October 3, 2018, for an alleged offense punishable under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act and Section 193 of the IPC. The petition was listed for orders. However, when called for hearing, neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present, and there was no representation on their behalf.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with the summons issued for offenses under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act and Section 193 of the IPC? The petitioner's arguments were not recorded as they were absent. The respondent's arguments were also not recorded as the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution before arguments could be heard. The court's decision was based solely on the absence of the petitioner and their counsel.