Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

HC no to Gauri Lankesh murder accused's default bail plea

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

Bengaluru, October 23

Advertisement

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused in the journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case seeking “default bail” by challenging a lower court order.

Advertisement

Hrishikesh Devdikar of Maharashtra was arrested in January 2020 and sent to judicial custody in connection with the case. Later, he filed an application for ‘statutory/default bail’ under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the special court. However, his application was not considered by the court. Hence, he approached the High Court against this.

The accused’s contention was that since it was a murder case, a chargesheet had to be filed within 90 days of his arrest. But no chargesheet was filed against him even on April 4, 2020, so he should automatically get bail as per Subsection (2) of Section 167 of CrPC. The government advocate argued that Devdikar was absconding and a chargesheet had already been filed in his absence. On October 21, Justice Suraj Govindaraj rejected the plea, stating the chargesheet in the case was already filed before this accused was arrested. Therefore, he cannot seek the benefit of Subsection (2) of Section 167 of CrPc.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement