IN THE HIGH cour-:1" as KMNATAKA AT BANGALGRE
amen 11415 THE 24*" DAY SF MARCH 2009
BEFORE
ms HON'BL£ MR. JUSTICE v.c. 5ABHAfi$'Vf 'h f< 2V
Cri. P. No.26?/2009
BETWEEN:
3. BORAMMA
W/O. ?ATEL NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT '?5 YEARS:
2 Si-SANTHAMMA
w/0. ?ATEL NINGE€OW_{)A_ A %
AGES ABOUT 55 Velma
BOTH ARE Rm' :uARAr{§.LuA,%k[%%%wL% «k
MELKOTE'!-§'f;),.F$L1 =: _
.
MANDYA :3_I§TR2c:T 401
3 RADHAMMA
AGED Asou-‘5 3’8″{E}&.RS,
ware. BASAVEGOWDA,
gaze, BEVIWAKUPPE
f. i(A,SABA H03L1’–,——« =
?AF&.I3AV.ۤPURA TALUK
% %M;a!~4L¥A%VT:>-:sTa1cT 571 401
4 “”MAN{§A§,§ib§MA
‘*-4…AC.-FED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
w/9. LINGEGOWDA ‘: 2 *
R/O. MOQACHAKANAHALLI
DUDDA HOBLI
MANDYA TALUK
AND DISTRICT 571 401
PETxTIo?§’é~é5 T.
{By Sri : K 2. SREENIVAS, ADV.,=) g.
vauvauvauvauuuvau
THE STATE OF r<Aa:~:ATA;<A~._ ~
BY PANDAVAPURA !?OLI(:E"STAT°IO.N
PANDAVAPURA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571491 *
A A % -.. "'~:';j_.v-_3ESPbNDENT
(By T;-is A01/ocATE ma
THE 9sHfioN§s,Rs"::T;éRAYn§:a THAT'%'TH:s HON*8i_E COURT
MAY BE"-.PLE4A$Ei3iT.C) »TE%:<z2;-xizgaa THE PETRS. on BAIL Ia:
THE EVE?~§T'_'0F 'TH'EI'R.':k5;§|'§4R.EST IN CR.NO. 405×93 as
PAND.g5\&'APUF'iAw.,VA'P<§vLICE éTATIC}N, MANDYA DISTRICT,
1. ..VwHiC:’H RE£D.V”FGR~’¥’¥-§4E OFFENCE P/U/S.498(A), 304(3)
R/LW SEC;3s4’A:_~¢9 sec. 3 & 4 as D.P.ACT.
ceming on far Orders this day, the
_ Couft.ma;’de-.t-fie feliowingzw
dowry of Rs.4S,0GO/–, 60 gms. of Goid from the
complainant and about Rs.3,00,000/~ was spent tomiaros
the marriage expenses. After marriage, Kuma.ri–.v9’en_t”.j’to”
the house of the petitioners to lead marit’a–l:.Vlifevl’_and~’
accused No.1 (Boregowcla),
petitioners herein and the petitioners”*startel:i1;.i’l§:t§~eating’V”g
Kumari physicaily and menta£’I’3rs».:”»Though.V_ was
held several times, there vi_iasV_tn*o.._ irriprovenéenit in the
conduct of the petitioners;-lCiiifltfitt?t..:2e’Q$__’.’at about 5:30
a.m., the c€’–_i’3’4’l7’AAf’i’§l1inar1:i’v §’te”.=~V….”eix’/’eat’*:.”infQ.t5rhation that his
daughter has given to
her by and brought the dead
ooéy otvvliiéiimalri and compiaint was lodged
in PaodvavaouiraivPoliceA’;’5tVa’tion, Mandya. Charge sheet has
-“‘.,..i,ae’e’:$,.j””:ifilxed against””the petitioners 1 and 2 herein ans
:a;ci’::i;jserl:::’ii$l’o»tiA~:f”_j..Boregowda for the offences punishable
mtg Sectio:hs::498«A and 304-3 of the zpc. The offence
ll”‘~.-*i.___”-alleges against the accused – petitioners is punishable with
“‘lii’h1.p’risf.snment for iife. At this stage, the petitioners are not
‘ –..i_en?titied to anticipatory baii since charge sheet has already
» been fiied against them after completing investigation.
-35,’-
Therefore, a prima fade case is made cut against the
petitiorzezrs and this is not a fit case for gri:”§..r:j:’tir]g
anticépatory baii.
Accordingly, the Criminal Pet§$:¥6n*~i«s
S’i.I”‘§~ % %
sumi ‘V ”