High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Ramappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 August, 2008
Author: R.B.Naik
 

IN THE HIGH COURT 01? KARHAT_A%~Ki%oAoeE%%  E ' 

CIRCUIT BENCH AT-- % V:  H  
DATED THIS THE 18TH iI)Ai'H%%oOF   k  A
'»B.:EFQREV. V .  E .    %
THE HON'BLE MR;-IUsT:cE R.'B..N!I]}{.

_Cl?1MH\iA1:PE'}*__   14 1 (2003

S / o. Mallappa _ °  .
Aged 38 years, 06;'; A;__,"f1'C11IiZLh"f.3,_W_ .
R / o. Yarc:k'uppi;, Taiiik: Rahebennur,
District,Have1'i'(;#';et;i1se'd)_[V"'v~-- _ ' ' : Petitioner

(By SI'i.'l'v'\JI.l\rV'I%."}<I<_)"riz11.?:xtlrAi;. Advocate)

.'The'E§'tate'ofE§éx'f1"aju$taka,

By'  Police,

   Rep,' by St.sate;1Fubfic Prosecutor,
High Co1.u*tA ofKarnataka,

14' ,_Circuit Bepeh at Dharwad.

. Respondent.

with his wife, saying so, with sie’kle’,’:
assaulted on the back side of
complainant fell down to ~ who are
standing nearby place, the hospital,
he took treatment in at Ranebennuer as an
impatient from 0g;>,,o6.20ossg;; 2′

3. V ____ on record, particularly,
the it not indicate whether the

complainant grevious injury or simple injury and

_ the not been described by the doctor. The

discloses that the quarrel took place on account

of the accused presumed that the complain’ ant had

i an with his wife. Since the oifence alleged against the

” ” ‘: A”accused-petitioner is not exclusively punishable with death or life

A and looking to totality of the facts and cincunistances

“cf case and the nature of injuries caused to the complainant,

-ssithout expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I hold that

” petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. Hence, the following order is

passed. /4, LL___

The P!’-‘1:it:io11¢=:1Vf_ bond in a sum of
Rs.30’,{)QQ/- (:Rupc§:§ only) with one surety
for of the court below,

‘ :r1V-1.§’/ i [