@ ..... A "' ._R;'_at 4*". "Cross V % ff (fa: Sri. .H';K.Thimmegowda, Adv.,) _ T% State by Basaweswaranagar Police 'ffiangaiore. ...RESPONDENT
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGAL§)§§.E».
DATED THIS “me as: fmr or DECEMBER 2935*} ”
BEFORE n T 1! 1
mg HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE As:§i{§§<jjrs*
1. Gangaraju @ Ganga.
S/o.Krishnappa ‘
Aged about 23 years V g
R/at Kattigenahalli
HosakoteTa:!u5§Vst~rict. _
2. Ava: Kh_an”‘*@”‘A§*3.Z,
S/o.W’azéer.}£harii”f ‘ _ _
Agedabout 26.ve_»ar*s[ ‘
R/at Katt£genaha*Hi_”~ ,_ __ ‘ .
HosakoteTaIuk’= .– V
Bangalore””R%u’r’alV[2ist’rict’;”
] ‘$(o.Shaffiu’i€a
=Aged abdut’ 34 — years
i{atiai<a_nag".ar"
Ba’:1gai9re:V.”” PETITIONERS
(Sy Sri A.V.Ramakrishna, Adv.,)
_ 2 _
This cm’. is filed u/5.439 Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge
the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.77/G5 of
Besoveshwaranagar P.S. Bangalore City, which is
registered for the offence p/u/s.8? r/w. 379, 511 of IPC.
This Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the fotlowingh
Q._B._D_.E_B.
The respondent registered Crirne
offence punishable under Sestléon Sifllof th.V._’..”..;_;av’rn’ata;lta’ V’
Forest Act r/w. 2
2. The-brief is that on
6.3.2006,1th.e’A’~voetitione-rswienterecilthe compound of the
complainant.” house of the complainant
from outsicie, telephone wire. They were
tuttivn-:.;1.th_e sancta’l’–.v§o_o_e.tree there. on hearing the cutting
.vthe’«ovA.<Vit:rn_plainant switched on the lights but
The complainant started blowing
V –Vwhistl"es from"'V'inslde. The petitioners took to their heels,
theneighbours started coming out.
3. Sri H.i(.Thimmegowda, learned Counsel appearing
‘:’_4″‘for;the petitioners submits that there is absoluteiy no eye
‘witness to the alleged incident; no materials are recovered
I
-3-
from the petitionelsfie further submits that the petitlo_n__ers
were never taken to the complainant’s house. There
slender evidence, he submits that there is no
the case culminating in conviction. _.t~£e..elso’to uh’
notice that in the other criminal :Casesi*~§«here”
facing similar situation, the._v:v”‘petltlone_rs areA”5._;a:Vrea§dy
released on bail
4. Sri A.V.Rama Government
Pleader suhmits”‘th:e*t thereoarew as 18 cases
pending against:-~t§3_:e the offence of theft,
etc., when _the’7i:xetVi_tiolners”‘could not lift the material, the
question of_LrecoSrering’ t4h’e’:lVrn.ateriel from them does not
arise at ‘all.
in ?;he’oours.e«’of his rejoinder submissions, Srl
V.V.Tni.rnme learned counsel for the petitioners relies
on”th’e’ of Rejasthan High Court in the case of
“t..___’.JpaichendV”‘${s’.’ State of Rajasthan reported in 1991(3)
‘ i.CriVrne«s 63, wherein, it is heid that the pendency of many
___’7~7’ca£§es”against an accused is not a ground to deny bail to
“*,him in a given case.
HEM
. nas.
_ 4 _
6. In the instant case, the pendency of 18 cases
coupled with votuntery statement of the accused-
petitioners disentitte them to the grant of bait. It
position in law that for the purpose of ban, ”
statement cannot be excluded from -::on»si.der–‘at’i’c?_>snLttelj
7. At this juncture, sri Thi,tnrn_efsosatde;-_iea’rnec§_’
counsel brings to my notice thaet__.petit§9_ners are
custody for the last 2% yea rs. to
expedite the trial and detevenéthiinehigeseible tedispose of
the case within an outer today.