IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO_R__E
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF' FEBRUARY 203:3
BEFORE AT T. .
THE HO:\I'13LE MR. JUSTICE T'
CRL.P.NO.€-3395/2009 C/W ORL..P.HTr3:62"5.iX2009,
IN CRL.P.NO.6395/2009
BETWEEN:
AMARNATH S /O RAMAC1~1AND.RA3AH T _
AGEDABOUT24YEARS g D
R/AT NARAYANAREDDY"BUILDING,_
BOMMANATIALLL
BENGALURUQ-._ .1 ?.;'."'PET1TIO1\sER
{By SRI.T.SATEEf"§HA: «-- TO
AND :
STATE OE
J.P.NA_GAR PO_L1cE:--STAT1ON,
BEJEGALIJRUR' ~
* _ REP."'B?_{--'-A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CITY 'EIVTL .&*SESS1ONS JUDGE,
I BI3N{3ALURU_._ RESPONDENT
439′ OF”CR.P.C. PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON
IN C.C.N’O.285}5/O9 {CRIME NO.-496/O9} OF
THE FILE OF THE VWADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
(By”SR1.E.éALAKR:SHNA, HOOP.)
T’ ..T”H1S’OR1M1NAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
J;.P.NAGARA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, NOW PENDING
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE FOR THE OF FENCE PUNISIEIABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 353 AND 307 R/W SEC. 34 OF
IN CRL.P.NO.6251/2009
BETWEEN:
SRIRAVINDRA REDDY G. @ RAVI
S /O VENKATARAMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT BAYA REDDY BUILDING, ‘ _ I
OPPOSITE PANCHAYATH OFFICE BUILDING ‘
DODDA THOGUR,ANEKALTA_’LUK, _
BANGALORE CITY. I .. r I ‘ *;;…PE’rITIONER
{By SRI.C.H.JAD3.{AV, ADv;}[j I
AND:
STATE,vOFvKAE2NA’E§.KA”BY’—
J.P.NA.GAR PGL1C_ESTATIG.N, . _’
BENGALURUR ‘ I
REP. BY’ STATE ‘PUBLIC ‘PROSECUTOR
HIGH: COURTIBVUILDIPIG
BANGALORE. RESPONDENT
* _ {By’iISRIIB.BALAKRIS’B:\IA, HCGP.)
‘ – If :,’CRIIAINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
!I.3S–._OF”CRv;AP.’O.”PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL INV’1_vC’RIAI;IE NOASS/09 OF J.P.NAGARA POLICE STATION,
_ I W__BANGAIgORE, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SEC-‘T_[‘IONS 353 AND 307 R/w SEC. 34 OF’ IPC.
” “DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
THESE ¥’E’I”I’I’IONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
/1
6
prosecution bringing to the notice of the Court that
several cases have been registered against the..,__said
petitioner and therefore, the grant of bail
reconsidered, the petition was posted for
to on 18.12.2009 on which day the order’ it
open Court on 16.12.2009
abeyance. Thereafter, beenbi
posted before this Court order” passed by
Hon’b1e the Chief Justice-I.’ i
5. The-ipbieamedpi’oounse-!.._ for “the petitioners
vehern;ent.13′ eo7nVte_ndedvi._t”l*iat–even if the allegations made
in the Complvaiint “”a:reV.aeeepted, no Case is made out
aga.i§nsti’.these’ petitioners for offence punishable under
.A of IPC and therefore the petitioners are
enlarged on bail. It is their further
‘V that the petitioners have been falsely
iixiplicated in several cases and in all those Cases they
haire been enlarged on bail and it is only because they
of the two Wheeler and when he was running away. the
complainant and others tried to chase him thegvacciused
No.1 took out a dragger and tried to inflict _
complainant and at that time the cornpla’iiiaj1t”‘lired ”
accused No.1 with his service-._ regvol-§Ier»._ar1_d thereby
accused No.1 sustained in_;nries. There is ‘aEos.ovl*L1.te’.y no.”
evidence to indicate that tligidisuffered
any injury. ‘No oVert””act.is against accused
No.2 except stating No.2 tried to
run the vehicle Having regard to
the “the case, at this stage
this Court.’.is that there are no reasons to
believe that the petitioners are guilty of offences
puriislriable_under””Sections 353 and 307 of IPC. 11; is
a1g.oip¢1«:i;;¢nti;o note that after arrest in this case, the
pefitionersi have been arrayed as accused in several
other eases and in all those cases; even as per the fair
xi’;-.,si2.b_n1ission made by the learned Government Pleader,
…_tl1ey have been enlarged on bail. Under these
{3