IN THE 2-ms;-c coum OF KARNATAKA AT 3A§:s, A§;c2§aE %A%
om'-:r> was THE 14*" may or= Au:-msf;%1%goc3j T V %
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE'}AQ§4AN'S§%£ANT'.§'§i:§é':QLIE§AR %
CRIMINAL P§:IT:eé;i%Na29Sgl2ea3%
BETWEEN:
Smt.Puttmnma V . V' _ _ _
w/o.Kempegq*iwi(i£§.VLbV1" g A '
Occ: .
rf0.N0.35, 1"-?*.P9!éix;, 1*? ("3rda$'
R.T.PIégar__ - ' -
Bangalé-_1fe--<32 _ .. PETFPIONER
(By 311 Adv.,)
'- .. ; A' ..... .. "
'Thc.VSi£1A1te~of«.:EC~:iII1ataka
' _Pc».1iC-at 0f ',.
R.'1t.;x;ags.r"_ Station
Basggaxoxc egg; .. RESPONDENT
3 (By Sré fionnappa, HCGP)
This Cr}.P. is filed under Sezetion 439 of C2r.P.C. by the
..vm:ivocatc for thc petitioner praying that this }~¥o;1’blc Court
.3.
may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on in
C3R.No.54/2008 of R.T.Nagar 19.3., Bauga1or¢..1_:;1tyL_’VT.naw
pending in CC.No.11407]2008 on the fi1¢.–3″_of”‘the
Addi.CMM., Bangalore City, which is I’egistgzeril*v..f(}r “the
offence punishable under Sectio::1s§O2, Bfiitfa} _:1_'{fsnii;V..S-1’-r;{c:i:i§>11
34 ofIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of:D.P;Aet. .
This cm”-. coming on for 0,11%; the
made the fol}owing:–
Petitioner in Crime
No.54/2€)Q8: registered fer
the ovi’ff_’§1f1%(:’:<:V ééexgfions 302, 304(b) I'/W.
Secfi§n1._ Séctiens 3 and 4 cf Dowly
P'I'01fi1$iti€#fl have laid the charge sheet.
A is filed under Section. 439 cf Cr.P.C).
L… to the petifioner.
.. of the prosecution is that the marriage
” ~ bctwfién the deceased and Lokesh took place about 2%
yéiars prior to the death of the decfiased. Petitioner is
the mother-in–1aw cf the deceased. At the time of
if’
marriage, the bridegeom was paid gold
emments and certain amount of cash,.__”” ~ the
marriage, the deceased started
house along with the -I ‘i’he7.___
petitioner being the m;0t11er–iItt41ettéG’V.ef
to harass the deceased geid
ornaments and :« ‘herhhpevrents. The
complaint di_se1osee_ a site was
get tin “hf petitioner by the
father of the deceased. All the
allegatiens the petitioner. At the time
of dean; dgxeaéed had left the death note, which
the petitioner is the cause for the
‘ V’ death’ ‘deceased.
‘V -:S[1*iV’€”;adasI1ivareddy, learned advocate appearing
er: of the petitioner submits that the death note
2 ” ‘T tiefl. the deceased cannot be relied upon, irlaemuch as
the Signature feund in the death mete difiers from the
1/3
.4″
siglature found in the P110 marks card 01′ the
It is true that the signat11re found in they
card is in English, whereas the thgé
death note is in Kannada. Howa7 €:ve1.§,’.’
be gone into in detail by the-
material ta be oollectgd
Hawever, V 0f the
allegations this is not a fit
case to bail. Accordingly,
sd/4
Mg;
*c1:.;é