High Court Karnataka High Court

Akram Sharffuddin vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Akram Sharffuddin vs State Of Karnataka on 1 July, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
 "2; _  }%SiféE"SI?§AIK,

m THE HEGH coum 012' KARNATAKA, BA:\;c;:;é:L{)R_:«: V' %%

DATED T818 THE 13'? DAY QF 3i§'L*;,"'g0<')9J.:_': -

BEEFOBE

THE HGNBLE MR, JUS'PI{3«Fi.:"§UB}«hiAS1%§"fi:'.Af§11'r 3

CRL.P. Ha.'%25§6"c'fiFj'26a9

BE'rwEEN;--

1.

AKRAM s1§ARIa’i«f¥JD:)IN§, :
AGE: 21 ..

Sm. SEARH313′-Dziira’-:3*1,E*rz, ‘j ‘
Ire/AT.#s.1;»-5:;:, « ._
MAi*{ALAI{§::HMI;A: ” >
RACE COU’R.S§;.RQAD;”-___ _ —

UNDER .BR’I_§G}3I;~,, ‘ ._ ” _
BESEDE JAYIK-AU»’£’*£)»_ ‘MRAGE,
MUMBA:.- 34. – W

(:5u;:CUsE{;w-.1§o; 🙂 i

31:3,, ‘L.ATE’ IQBAL SHAEK,

-g-AG1.«::;’ Y’r3£s.RS,
R’/AT’ 1~siAL;’; SUPARA,
‘–~’.I’HA?€A_ I}:-:1S’I’RI(1:’I’,
WEST MUMBAI.

~ (ACQ¥J’SED N(}.4)
” * BOTH ARE IN JUDICIAL custom’).
” P13’1’moNER$

(m’sa1 ‘1: SATEIJSHA & ASSGCIATES, AfiV()CA’I’ES}

?§ND;–

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY CHICKPET POLECE STATION,
BENGALURU,

REP. BY PUBLIC. PROSECUTCIR,

CITY CZIVEL ANTI) SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.

(BY SR1 SATISH R. GIRJI, HCGP)

REsP(j4′:~§:I)§:Ia:fi*’

THIS CRLP is FILED U/s;=..439AAT¢R4;P?£3..’%’m”*f’;fHIi2:;7
ADVOCATE ma THE PIETITIONER WBRAYING “:+Hm~.T;:11~s *
HOINFBLE coum’ MAY BE; PEQE-,ASED7.T’G RgL’E;;ss_1:: THE

PETITIONERS on 31%, IN C.C.N_G~..3888j20G9 (CR’:.MTE”N0.
162/2003} 0? C¥§ICKPE’§’ PfOLICE».S’TATION*, .1BANGAL0RE,
PENDING ON THE FILEOF T§~i£%–.’IX ‘;aDDI’r:U:~:A;;’ CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAG.I_S$’:!’RA_TE,. . ‘«.._B¢$’NGALORE FOR
OFFENSE PUTQISHABLE U’;;;; ‘39.5.7QF 1P.162f on 16.12.88 for sfience

pumshable V395 of}’i?C:’

_ – _ A q V” Tfifi has alleged that on 16.12.08 when

1:.e’ 011 Avenue Road carrying geld 31:’tic}.t=:$ in

about 550 to $900 gags, some unknown

“-w__ p.ersons” .VV;cA’éa1nc {mm behind and snatched the geld

“fi€ma§é,’n.{s. He lodged the compiaint. %

3. On the basis of the compiaint, poiice,

course: of investigatien apprehended the accusgéri. *

instance the gold was recovered. ibis ‘£:{iat’-_

these accused are fram Mumbai and”‘1$eC–.fi1fi1g fl’1€5ir_.’pré$éi:aCE1.T_:

is not possible. V’ V . _ L’

4. Learned Counéei’ fizé ._s’ubmit that A–2
and A–3 had almgiég en1;>.;rgc°%.d;:’g:>1f:.V’*¥7;§:.3;’1 by cmzier
dated QQI04-:i'{)’$.:~ Hdizérever, in so far as
these concerned, the gold
was Viz1vo1vemc:n’:. in the crime
anti are not resident of Mumbai,

in t’§14:;j:’e”v”~::I1t fif ‘i’?h§’v:iJi’V”.’:1¥3$-i’,();f1€ii1fig, the trial will be delayed. N0

‘V ofbail. Petition is dismissed.

ear-‘M
Iudqe