High Court Karnataka High Court

B M Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
B M Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
IN THE HIGH Comm 0;? KARNATAKA AT BANGg{:.o'i§j§:Vi%%j"'   =

DATES THIS THE 16"' DAY 01:' Q.CTQBE_R§"§?§O'{i'8    

BEFORE

THE H()N'BLE MR, JUs'rIcI3:'.:A:s:§;oK"ts.'  

CRIMINAL mrrrrcm Nq._}'t-;- .93 .91? Q % '=,3_ __ 

BETWEEN:

BMRAMESH V   '
s/<3 MUNIVENKA'TA§'PA_   _'  _  - 
AGED PJEYEARS      _ 
R/O NEW axTENs:_oN   - ' _   .
BETHMANGALA f "
KOLAR DISTRICT ~ H V V _

 """     ..,PE'¥'I'I'IONER
{BY SR1 ASHQK. I~ifi.RAN_AHALL£, ADVOCATE]

AND:

S'I'A'I'E OF KARNATAKA,  V. '
RE!-"RESEN'I_?ED BY SI'A'?I..(;)N HOUSE OFFICER
Bm._HMAN%LA__ A   ..... 
KOLAR DIS'PRIC?1" _ 
  "      RESPONDENT

u SR1 HQNNAPPA, HCGP}

THH3 {_3RL;P FILED U/3.433 GR.P.C 3*; THE ADVOCATE F01?

owns. pmmommz magmas: ‘PHAT THIS momma comm’ MAY’ BE

— . _fFLF.ASED TO “:*3:i~::.AR<3E THE PE'I"i'FIONER on BAIL IN 'THE EVEN'? 0?

4HIs;xRR!:s__'r IN'"CRIME.NO.137/2008 0? BETHMANGALA P.S., K.G.F'.,

2 '–._ms'r-:,_"-QN THE ma 0? THE ADDL. Jmm, ;F:.’¥’i~I§i errpsucas pxu/sass, 511, 1091190 R]?! 3 85 4 EXPLOSNE
‘ I%3L_3BsTA;§IcE ACT’ 1903 R/W 44 KMMC RULES 1994. _

” ‘THIS CRL.P. comma or: FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT

. TI&§A.DE THE FOLLOWING:

QRDER

The respondent registered Chime No. 137] ‘ ‘flL’l£’.”;: _A

eflenees punishable under Section 286, 3°’

and 4 of Explosive Substances Act. 1908 I’V/-“:57

2. The case of the pmsccution is 2008
on receiving the credible inior:igmt,ioizi;’%iii.§,vcut’t;i’ tjic spot in
Nagashettyhalli Village, and found
that some persons biast the rocks on

the Government IQi1d.$”vfi§ifig. gxiimivge Their activities

would have eaused hliiveriand properties of the people

in and around thesaid ‘

* 3. Ashisk-ii–a:ana3ia11i, the Icalflfid counsel fer the

ivéfleénigappa, the learned High Court Government

” }_?1eader.i’o: fl1e Ieefflfldent.

‘ It is _ni’;t the case of the prosecution that the petiticner

4: the spot. The case of the prosecufion is that the

V. provoked] instigated othem to indulge in the activity in

V 4’~q1_ie’$fien. As contended by Sri Ashok Haranahafli, it could only be

ease of name dmpping by the accused persons, who were pmsent

HEM

b) He shall not tamper with tha pmsccufion ~

c) He shall make himself available as and ” u

the Investigating Officcr.

d) He shall mark his attendvixicgq; bé’:£’i!E’I¢’i’£:RV

2,00 pat; on every S1mday the ~ House
Oflicer, Bcfhamangaiaiflolitfie __thc iztwestigafion
is complete the ;i$.”i”.3.1’tV:C§,..

6. This ordgar _E;e= £1 of one month
within whictfi time: £41311 move for regular bail

Anticipatoxy grfanfcd’

Sd/-3
Iudgé