High Court Karnataka High Court

Abrar Alam vs State By Narasimharaja Police on 1 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Abrar Alam vs State By Narasimharaja Police on 1 September, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi

W’? Wfifiifififififfififl WWW mm? flig Wfififlfififiafifi Hfififi Qfiwiw 3?

;:$=’e«.RM&”E&K& WGH Cfiififl’

IR ‘1’!-IE man mm 0:? KAMATAKA AT

» ‘%’!:*%’5,3i§fi”E” W55

AHRARALAH 810 MUNEER JAE? 1
AGEBAB0U’i’21AYWEAm'” ” 1 _’

RIA D30. 26 §J;6f,=1[ ‘..I(.D-:,K. g ” V.

mun: uor:.A£J..!;;j ~ _V 1;. V

mrsonm A PETYPIONER

(BY mv.)

8TA’£;’E”BY nomczr:

– % REPT. B¥../§!JBLIC mmmmoa
err mmzaraxa
H1csa%coUR¢3ImnmG
msmxmmr

Heep)

_ V _ . Crixmnal Pemion 5 am undm section 439
.. _ ‘f:.r2P;’C. ta enlarge the petitioner on bail in (.’.z-.133.
of Narm1:tuhItrn’ pnfim afafion, Mysore,
V an the file of 1% II} Addl, First Civil Jutige (Jr.
Du.) aMJMFC, Myaorefor the ofianohs’ purmhablse and»:
aectwn 307′ rlw 34 MEG etc.

§=€;<%é3':§e飫'%'§'&%.& Wfiffifi fiifiifi

ii

DATEDTTIIS nm 12 my on ssP'm1A;aE1§ f L

,~2.2éé2§v?%?% fiflwfi

Thu? petition conning on for orders am day,

The camplaizmnt albges %

8.45 p.m.. he alum wan rm

mew' were standing about 9

p.m,., acme-one came ._stabib::§Ad him fi-om

behixfi. He persom an

the can identify the
accanedfy ____ was in C:-ima
No.268]:{) 9 ofiame punishable under
section me. The mm in unam-
stated. tmt the awunad were

mammm MEQW mum WP WfifiNfis"i"fiK& WGH cmm" 0? K?fiW%A"€'fi@K.& fir-%i€?~H mum" 0% %;%fiNA'"%'m'<{;s"3%.

' H B undar irxvummion and efimm alleged

km ~¥i: am peumm' ' *3 am puma hable my Sacha' 1:1
VT Imd R h mta fitcasa for grant afhafiatfim stage.

3
2%
3
a
E”

g
3
E
a
X
&
Q
g
$
Q
Q3

r%@V.,»’:*'”..

3
Petition is .

ed! ‘
SUDGE

$33 fig: §€§§§ $6 .§§u xfimx figazxfix @@ .p.m§§uw imxx égééfixéé em? §3§§ Eaii $£§§_.m§§§.§ §__L §§§§ igii ?2§:§.:§§ %; EEE;