Karnataka High Court
Sri.M.Muthuraj vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 July, 2009
=5'
s
2:
§
£
§
E
§
§
%
E
An
5
§
§
3
3
x
§
x
E
E
3
E
§
E
E
3
$
2;:
3
§
3
»1, EA_1~zs3:-can -- see 001.
§'a»%'% fiwfififi'? fifi W4W%fia"fi%&fi; Wfifi ¢'20:flE'£_3" $9 KfiRNM'§"fl%.%& Mfififi fififigfi W5" fimi'
Ira 'rim HIGH COURT 0!! KARHATAKA, Bmtiamgs
rwrxn nus ms 271*}: mm as aunv 2ajda V.:T"'-.VA
wrong A '' . V'
THE Hma'n1.s 1-rm. ausT;c:m,1summsH_'"""' §3';V
g:__1_1__:_..9 no.33u' O£"_"2§JO«§». j' V
sarwsm V " 1' '
sRI.M.MU'n-Iuam
S/O LATE HRFEIAH, *
NEED 2'? ; ,
RESIDIHG AT M=3?HIfi%EDI;.*,"
nmannyz VILI.;1u3bEV--_ V ..
=i3:e:('s'x*R1
.. Anv. 1
*$T3'};'E°
_ BY"!.-t£iV!.I!§$s.VU*--V mars:
" ;B.?|NGK1-:03! DI5TRIC'I'
,__REV£'RESE.1\E'§v'--!.-TI3«'BY STATE wane PROSECUTOR
Hz:-:5 ccum aux LBING,
... amseanoxuw
sax a.am.AxR;tsm~:A, map)
'W._ *z'I-I13 camp rxnzn U/8.439 cn.9.c av ma
;.P'u.'7IVOCA*!'E ma mm wrrrxozama amuse mm: was
%ibN'8I:E coon? MAY as P535853 T0 mums HIE are
BAIL,.'£H cams rm-.:.21!2oa9 amxswrmn av ms
HULIMAVU 9<3m:<:x srxrzox, Now rmtsirxa 0:»: ms 3': LE
OF THE VT'!-I mm, BANGALORE, FOR THE ormzcs P/W3
426,36 OF IPC.
E
i
E
E
2
:
§
3
§
:
§
3
z
E
Ru
3
§
3
3
3
3
Q
a
@
E
2
E
§&
Q
i'?
E
§
§
%g
3
SE
x
= dismissed.
Em *€';'Z%°I5%£§fi.'¥ Q? %lMflNfia"%'%%fi éflfifirfl %®fii;§'W" Q?
THIS PETITIQN CGJING ON ?OR ORDERS IIAY,
THE COURT PASSED 'PR8 FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Hulinuwu police registered a ci§§r?::”*
Na.121i2009 for the o£rahé§s*«p¢nig§aB;§V-fin&a£’il
Sections 3’76 and 426 of’ 11>c;’«.__
g. complainant is sfiga Wallagafil
that the patiti¢z;§;:! §ii§€t$i_é:3ad with her
and making par :9 he wouid marry
her. Abo’§1t”‘j:;f5ne. had forcibly
camaittéé :fitsfivxA’V”‘t«h;;e£’e:g£tex, he reruaed to
f:£_’1é’dV: a complaint.
»’I’he’- under investigation. At
atgig’-m_ ‘i fir: not find that the petiticsnu:
hg a:Vii’i:arged on bail. I-Iawavar, the
is at liberty to renew his bail
Etta: the charge sheet is filed.
4. with the abcrva absarvatian, tha petition
Ehi/¥-
Iiudgpe
1432.1