High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri K R Nagesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri K R Nagesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT (JF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE

i)ATEI) THIS 'm1«: o3'"' DAY ()1: N0VE1V'iBI:7:R 2009

B E E0 RE

THE I-iON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVAI)1%5€§E§Ei§}x',§2iE;}:is:11?' -

CRIMINAL PETITION N»0.,’3’l)&4l.’_”(.V)”E V”

BETWEEN:

1 SR1″ K R NAGESH
AGED 21 YEARS
s/0 RUI)RAIA_H'”~..V_ . E’
R/AT KETHAGANA4EH_ALa;;1; v”i1;LAGE
BIDAD} HOBLI E _ i
RAMAN’4A’G.AR TA’LUjK D'{S;FRICT

Ix.)

;3R1~ RAM;\;%1<EE;é @ RAMU

AGED 22 'YE'AA}{S.

S/O ATE r1Ar»’:uM~A1AH

“R./’AT 1<:s;.TH'AG;xNAHALL1 VILLAGE
" IBEIADADI HCJVE-ELI'
RAMA-NAGAR TALUK AND DIST… PETITIONERS

._(A"}§.yAM}§;éV¥_YV{;;'X§.E2AJAH ASSOCIATES, ADVS)

TH'{ێSTiATE ()1: KARNATA KA
. =.M».–4..GAI)I POLICE STATION
E lp1AMANAGARA DIST RESPC)N'DENT

My

{By Sri A V RAMAKRISHNA. HCGP)

THIS CRLP IS FILED U/S439 CR.P.C THE.
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYENC1»-_TH_AT
THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEA-SED TQ..}3NLA'RGE

THE PETRS ON BAMMIN CRHflE N0.¢9Wmx£T@F.
EMAGADIPOLK}iSDNHON,HflRTHE(flfENCESPKflS g

302.201<)F1Pc: _f"W_' W %M
THE CRMMNAL mnTn0NtCONnNG'0§HFoR

ORDERS "nus DAY, THE 'COURT J%ADE'jTHE

FOLLOWING»

oknfigv,

Pe.titi0ner.<; have s()JL1_gi2t'f(ii',g:'am..ofbaii in connection

with Cfa"i1nc'E\f{)",_.l £}f'N:lLlf.f.§1di Police St'.1tion.

"'.?,,Ii is a'i!::_ge(i thézt when the deceased was waiting for the

. 'mm 'm_ti~.c: bin's..Vs1z111ai_ them-2 petitioners along with (.)the:' accused

*péa's.(msV'{fié'e..nt';[in a Tana Sumo vchicie and picked up the

L dec'ea1.sédV stating that it is 21 passe.nger vehicle and she boarded

Lhewehicie and whim moving towards; R:;1managz;11'a she was

" d,()ne to death by st1';111guE;1tin_s; and the golden articics and other

W'

valtlables which were on her body have been robbed and the
deadbody was thrown on road side. This petitioner S'.-tiL1 to have
been arrested uftet' one year of the incident.

3. Heard.

4. Accordingg to the Ie.:11’ned Ct)L1–a.tseE for the, }.3.eE”;.t;:’io,nZe’;’._

petitioner is innocent of the ttllevged, offence-$.;.w. i”:~’j not awa_:’e V

of any such incident a1’id._(>r1E}/hf”one of the
accused this petitione.:* has been .’i’_IV”,s_1{:3lic:’a.ted._i_’» ._

5. Leégtrned G(‘)ov.e”1’1t.s’fient Pleader has Stlbi11i.E’ECL} that this

A pe’t_i’€é(‘):f1.r.3A:” one ‘(V):t”t-h::”z1ccuSeL1 who tmvehed in the Tata Sumo

‘tyEt_)i1’g §vi.111~v:it%1eif..t’i ve accuseci .1-md he is involved in commis.~;ion

caf-.mL11’de~:* _ii}i:d robbing of vuiuables from the deceased.

(3. Alreacly inves{igat’ion is completed and cl];-wge sheet is

“flied. Hence, it is for the petitioner to pr:-.35; for early trial. If’

2?”

36/
_ Llw-*3»? r» «E: iqfl ‘ _
{he case 13 not (Ia watlun sax 111ai1. Ac<_*.01'dingEy,_ pctifiion is disp<)sed_ of.