High Court Karnataka High Court

Boodesh S/O Mariyaiah vs State By Dudda Police on 25 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Boodesh S/O Mariyaiah vs State By Dudda Police on 25 October, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 20 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTiC.E'_N.ADéANL.3}3  E

CRIMINAL PETITION NC': 4J9'2'.';ZV[2:£.'I'O::'-  

BETWEEN: A

1. Boodesh S/o Mariyaiah  '
Aged about 27 Years". '_  V V ~  
Resident ofJodikrishi1;ea'pu.réi* Village,  ,
DuddaHoba1i_       _
Hassan Tq,a-1:id---Dis;triet._"_: .4  

2. Mariyaiiah ;i-'$'/oV'V.I;ak1{a:i'ja1j~  A
Aged.iabé'Ui"'3@:;Y€arS  "  
Residents' of Jodi "ishnapuréi'Vi11age
Dudda--HobVa}i:"-.._4"  ' '
Hassa.n'Tq and s't:i_et.  ...PETITiONERS

(By sr: Qirish..:B;B.valadetfe, Adv.)

 '- 'Staten  Police

Repfby P':-iigaiiia Prosecutor
High C.o"urt«--'Building

V Bangalore. ...RI3SPONDENT

A ":B."t';A'_~1'i Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP]

This Cr1.P is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C
praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in
Cr.No.39/2010 (C.C.No.335/2010) of Dudda Police
Station, Hassan district, registered for the offences
punishable under sections 341, 302 r/w 34 IPC.



This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following: 7 
O R D E R

Petitioners are arrayed as accused 4′
Crime No.39/2010 registered _for.__offe_nces’
under Sections 341, 302 r/W

Hassan District.

2. Petitioner No.1 ‘y_ounger:_bro§ther and

petitioner No.2 is the” Dinesha. They

are ailelgede coirirnitteldlltlde murder of deceased in
their They are in judicial custody
and – are seeking. it

‘\

ggj; Heardlvlelarned Counsel for petitioners and

Pleader for the State and l have

been taizentthrough the documents filed under Section

V _ 1;73(“5}.icr.p.c.

4. The documents filed under Section 173(5)

would reveal; that deceased Dinesha had

married first informant namely Asharani against the

}’\I.C3>,r£’w\\W.&-\,.\,.- I

Wishes of his parents and family members. Thereafter.
he was living with his wife at Bangalore. On 13.4.2010,
he visited his village to attend Kariyamma jatre he

was staying in his parents’ house. On [at

about 9.30 p.rn., Dinesha visited of

parents in a drunken state and:

them. Deceased Dinesha.pic_l;edlVu.pl’a cluiol”
assault his father and the _\ll\lh()TiSnatChed
the club from the assaulted him
and caused his-d_eath;”‘ if i V

-of documents filed under
Section find that the occurrence was

not.ipre–medit’ated. ‘The initial provocation came from

» VtneVsi.de.of,_deceased. Even if the entire case is accepted

on’-its face value, prima facie an offence under Section

302 of is not attracted. Petitioners 1 and 2 did not

A iihave any motive to commit the murder of deceased.

Therefore, their detention during trial would be a

measure of punishment. QQ
iv.’ ‘R \..«»g; y t

6. In the result, I pass the following order:
Petition is accepted. Petitioners are releasetton

bail, subject to following conditions:

1) Petitioners shall exeeu.’r.e~bond’s.l”fo”re’./.61

Iksommtemmemdp&&a§mm@j§@&;

likesuin to the Vsati’sfaction__ of }ur’is(ii’etional”

Court.

2} Petitioners sfiéill_’not. or tamper with
the prtisecutiionotxfifjftri-esstes,V’ I

3) ,.i*eg1:.il2i1*lyli.attend the Court.

Sdffin
Judge