IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD v
DATED THIS THE 20TH my GP Aueusdf, 29:53' #
BEFORE _ %
THE HONBLE M%.J1{5'?1TI;,'/EA. i§.B'.'f?"Ni§:
CRIMINAL
Between: ' h' «
Dattatraya,
S]o Santa Dha.n_1neka1f,H_ V
Age: Major, '
R/o Waragacin, ": .§3ha.r;_digad,v .
Dist: Kho1z_:_puj_1f. .~_ ' pmzriongm
(By 5.;-1. gamut RTE. bzagngiangéfiaéi, Adv)
The State Bf '
P.I. Pblicc Station,
fécpregscjzntgd by P.v§'-.--«Belgaum. RESPONDENT
' ,..'('5y€'ot1:3axnd1, HCGP.)
V__'l'i1i;é~"}iéti'{a'on is filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. praying to
clixtct' the Camp Police Station, Belgaum, to enlarge the
pctitimicr on 'bail in (Crime No.78 of 2007)
2 £::;e1,Misc.No.1?o/2003 , and etc.
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
9' QJ'ol,»*L mag
'J V' the A. " '
ORDER
A case in Crime No.78/2007 is zegiotexoo
in Camp Police Station, Belgaum,”
under sections 143, 147, 148, 302,
on the complaint of Ramu
Marufi. The petitioner hrsrgoin ao«c11~.5edV:no.1 and
at the time of filing of the osiichxet as accused
no.5. He is none;-lothcr complainant and
uncle of
on §4′.h1.2.~oo5 the p-c1:itioncr took
con1plajnxaz1VVt’:-2 Bclgaum on a motor cycle.
Thematic: did to the house. The petitioner
Vtandaskcdhjmtogotolmhjnoor
“io Accordingly, when the complainant went to
Koninoor he was informed that his son Maruti
away by Shjntu: brothers in connection with
aolo business and that Maruti had fled away with gold. It
aflnged that few days later the comphainant was
asked to cany Rs.60,000[- and in the event of gIv1′ ‘ng
Q. A .
Rs.60,000/ — the whereabouts ofMar1.tt:i will be eiwihen
the complainant Went there with the
Rs.48,00{)/~ was snatched fiom the it
The accused persons also
on blank papers and ._7On .the V
signatures obtained veeetion&..t1’3t’2.?Vo_:
against the complainanttéétogittiev an acquittal.
3. from a news report
that one mtmdered and during the
couzseiof case it was also revealed that
eomplaifieiatts also done to death. As such
aitetigreadiagw after a period of almost 1 year 7
ozooths lodged a complaint as against the petitioner and 4
and during the course of investigation 2
ott1er_ tvere implicated.
V It is pertinent to note that Marutri ~ son of
went missing on 24.1.2006 and till 29.8.2006 no
complaint is filed against the petitioner or co~aocu$ed persons
fie \..«.¢uJ»*-»~»\
4
suspecting their involvement in causing the death of
Maruti. The corpus of the deceased is not yet traced.
Though the complainant has averted in the complaint that
a sum of Rs.48,0()0/~ was snatched fiom
he did not lodge any complaint against
ether accused persons. In:-‘t1’1e– «
under section 138, though an
acquittal of the comp1aina;at:”even “then hot lodge
any complaint as other co–~
accused. Only on i “.a_’_’_.press report he
that his son was
takenlaway ‘ on 24.1.2006. This
V’ cannot be termed as last seen
asmthere is inordinate delay of 1 year 7
faaas.m4ldays in lodging the complaint, which is net
satisfactetily explained by the investigating agency.
..’IT}fi.o1igi1: the charge sheet is already filed, I hold that the
l”‘._Vpetitioner is entitled fair bail. Accordingly, I pass the
it ” ‘°fol1oWi11g: QQW_,,m_%___,
\
ORDER
The criminal petifion is alkrwazd. ;”i’i:¢” -7§e&t:¢gcr%%%Vi5’ 4 _
mlcased on bail on he sxccutilig Qa_A_°}:’2;<)1:1.:d_
Rs..50,000/ — with one surety . V
The petitioner slzgall {Ease of the
prosecufion or the Wi1ne3:§i:sA as
The pefi§io§nr_$h:3li of the case.
%% ~ A j SdJ:L % Judge V sub/---