State Of Karnataka vs Dr H R Vidyadhara on 2 April, 2009

IN THE HEGH comm' OF I£fi;RNATA§{A*'AT«B}§f§Ch}Ai§(3'R7 E'.}.T.  

DATED THIS THE 2:40 DAY o§?*1%AP:é:L 2669' .  _ ~ X

BEFORE 3:» % _  
THE Horsmm {)R.JUs'rIj_'::';I,§S1?:5) 

   A.  _____ 

DR. H_'_¥€'?;%I'DY23g}jf:iA£§A,

 8/0 H R"I{ANGMAI~i,,"'

  CHURCH. §:xf1*ENsI0N,

4, RESPONIDENT

   CRIMENAL PE'§'I"'I'£ON IS Ffl,ED U/3.439(2)

 '%%% "v-::R.I2.c'%.8Y THE SP? FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS

I-T'1<'Z»"%"E'v'5."_I»E3_i.»fE CQURT MAY BE? PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE

  ._-..QR};}ER DATED 30,03,200? PASSED BY THE PRL.S.J.,
*-..(3E~}F1'I2A}:)U'RGA, IN CRL.MISC.N0.45/22007 AND CANCEL

 $3.13 BAIL GRANTED TO THE REsP0Nm3NT--AcCUsE9.



In}

THIS CRIMINAL. PETYFION COMING  
Amztzssrom, 2313 DAY, THE comm' MADE   '. '

FOLLOWING: %% ..

The State is before this   
Cz'.P.C. i31"£":'»§i'iI1g for sfittmg    <§r<i t::r Jidated
30.03.2007 passed in =.:,«n the file of
the Pr1.Sessio;:1s JL;d_g c._at  bail to the
respondent.   " IL  ' 

2. ‘I’Vh ¢3_ ‘ “f€3fi0§fi éént/accused namely,
Dr.H.R.Vi§yad.hax:a’~ éxrgzsted in Cr.No.43/2067 0f

.__Po}i<:e for the efibnces under' Sec.498-A

and Sessions Judge after hearing the

V".;- fii4o:sect3.tit::1, bail an 30.03.2087 under Sec.439 of

s=1;b3'éC'§ to <:ert:ain conditions. This is impugnttd in

*5;,t:;:.s;,p¢s:itien_

3. _Lea.1:’I::ed Addl.SPP submits that though the

prosecutian has made out a yrima facie case for the

L/

Qffenass under Sec.¢?/98-A and 306 IPC, 1:116 Sessions CQz__1rt

erred in enlarging the accuseci an baii and t1″:€I'{‘:f<)3T(':.V_:':¥…*'~'1:§6"'-Vv

baii Q1' anted in favour 01' the accused shall be V.

4. Ixzarned counsel for the res[§61″§;d¢I1′{”

that there is me good gound for ;;~s:.:’;cel12iti_<§'12 of .. 2

5. Tha §’esp<:sr1dent,§.s., the, Ctf 't}1é:v«ci13.t€’r1t:i(i§IiV1~.Tf1’x:-if” his wife was sufiering from
manta} déiprfissicifxgiziétt iiwcfrnonths préor to Committing

sigéizia 1:33: V§1%f:$’_aI”1(1 fiiéédeceased has left :1 minor chflé.

6… H Czonsideratiarz 1:136 facts of the case

€i1€’g.{*é’L.;Ii1:ci1s ‘urged, Ieaxfied Sessions Judge has

subject is certain canciitions. It is not the case

–ViC:¥,’___’ti’fia V§§tate that the: accuseé has violataé arzy cf the tezms

cenéifiens 0f the baii, Under such chnumstancea,

there is 11% gage} ground for cancellation of bail _

favour of the respandent/accused.

7. In the result, petifion

disrnissed. _ V _
‘ Fudge

aw