High Court Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Arif vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Arif vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2009
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala


mammwusu

‘””””*”‘*””‘”” ‘M “”‘**'”‘”‘W”‘”\*’* WW” ~gw~.»;éM WK” fl-Mmwmmmm Msww m…wm um aanwwmhmmfia mam uwuw 6%’ KfiRWfiTfiKA HEGH CUUW” CW Mmmumm fimfi 0

2m max 3I&E’CGUET or xgaynfimxm AT.EA&3fibR£

aamsa T333 :33 1?” may OF a2RzL;ma9 1

agyoas %

TEE &UN’fiE£ aR.avsTIcs.§«§335:EaE%$é¥a 5:~
cw1.p.Mm.1223!§9o9g f

BETWEEN

M¢HAHHEE ERIE , ._ 3
516 Mmnaunan FARQSQA}
AGES AEUUT 29 ysaas

HQ.16, fa cRGss,w~-jV’
NEAR saJarmynmmm*§_:

HELEG¥§fiAfl§fi£LLE ‘ ‘”

2ANGALeg3~53e_o2$ff f1′{ »’… pgwzrxamna

j “”” “iagfisfii Q Eflfiazififiafi, Anv.,}

»$HE,ST§TE fiF Kfianmmaxa
g3y,;fi3pEcrsRw$§ BOLI¢E

~.wJA$aJ3E?AN RAH fiRGAR

~ ?Q2I€E”$T3TIGH
*(3§mGgLQg§” .,. RESEQHBENT

‘¥ ;@B§’s:i A v EAKAERISHNE, HEGP3

‘ $RL.9 EILED Ufs.&39 flR.P.C BY THE

_-AEVGCRTE EGR ran yzwxrxamaa paaxxma wag? THIS
%m iKnreLE comm: may BE BLEASED TG ENLARGE tag
,”§§rn. on BAIL IR CR.Hfl.99ffi8 GE J.J.HAEAR
}p.s., warcm: :5 R533. sea THE osrmxcz
PfUfS.é9B£&3; 39?, 50$ Rffi’ 34 as :9. ram

P.O., ETC*V, BARGRLQRE HAS fiISMlSSE§ THE BRIL
PETITIG fifi 21.6a38 GRL.HISC.HD.l5§6f2G$3.

wawme mwwme war” wmmmmammra Hanan mwgfia my” amaamamgaamnm Wmwfi hwwfli war” mmmmmlzammm smww wwtmm W? mnmvsimmwximm Mfiwfi mgmm WE!” fififiimmflifififl 2-amm Q

THIS PE’I’I’EEOI=§’ CGFIENG QR ‘ESE GRBERE THIS

BAY, “F1-E COXIRT I-{ABE *1’!-E EOLLGIQING:

QRDEZR

The petitienerfaacusad :N6}i. in .fitimaW:n

§c.9§{29G8 of Jaga§eevanV RafiK2$§§ar $¢3icé§W ”

Statian, Bangalore City i3J§afo£éa§hi§;§fififitfi
under Sectian $39 ef Qr{E.$L;:%?ék;ng flail Ear
tha affances undar S%@tio@§ @§§§fi+ §Q7; 506
read with Sect§GfiR§4 §£1§¢-%fi§f$§§§i$na 3 anfl

4 cf fi.P.Act; fim_7~i.

2. flLegmfiéé,,§eunfiél –f¢r the patitianar

sumita fihat théEé, i$’Jmaj0r aontzadiction,

omiasgén in thfi case cf the prasacution and

fié3§$§$i$i§!fi§E the offiences alleged against

V him;”fiesfu#§$ér submits that the petiticnar ia
‘*§ £§ady gna willing be take back his wife alang
%$fiE”$£e kid. Tharefcre, the petitianar may

. be enlaxgeé an bail subject to cenditiana.

ffimfik that the patitiener ia not

mmm w’4I.w’w¢m’¢=taV::M’»+nIa’I$Vom<"n oauww

flwféfifi £3?" Wflflmfifififlfik WI?" Efiflwflfi 52:35" mmmmmammm !E("I$He:..'mL"'!K mwwmx WW Mwwmmwamammmmm senmwwm *'m¢"1W9°%fl"

II:

S. Tbs case af prcaacutien cannat he

fiia*balieved at this stage, I see no ,§é§du

ground to enlarge the petitianar on haii;-Q €,

7. In the rasult, t2:x;a””‘pati.tiQ§:’T”1v’f§;1j.is

and tha same is hereby diamia%$d,z