Gopala @ Gopalli vs State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2009

iBBEGA3¢E3 

sswrw mwwmn WW imnaxmuamnn mama m..s..m§m Mr mmmmmamzsm mama": tsmwmm wt" mnae:NmaA¥s.m Wlmw mwwm Q3?" Raaflmfikefififia MW}-t n;m.5m' Q? iE&&RNA"¥AKA Hiflfii Q

IN THE Emma ccuar or KARNAIAKA, aaxeamoas
DATED THIS on THE 19"' tax OF FEBRBARY zgeg
BEFORE si k'a
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.BHAKmHavA§%3;§ l' 
CRL.P. No 49 or §DO§ f '   %%

BETWEEN

GGPAL 3 Gayazmx,

sis. MUKISWAMAPFA,

AGED A303? 35 YEARS L_V,
THIRUHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAS" ;_ ,xV %; 
ATTEBELE HOBLI, Afisaai T3LflK, " ~7~w»
BANGAmoRE URBAN DISTRIGT;, v_="=' »
{NOW nnnsasoxxs ;EPHISGNME§T "" ;

IN PARAPPANA«RGRAHARKrPRISGH;"~w"
BaHGALoRE).<: ""~ <%-.*.  % PETITIGNER
(By Sri/S: K.¥.MANJUN3Ta;,ADvT.)

AND:__

STATE GE Kfiflflflffifiagu
E3_HEBaAGon: Péilfifi
smfiwzon, REP E? BPP
HIGH COURT EUILDING

 ' ... RESPONDENT

aW f jffiy $ti}33iBALAKRISKNA, ace?)

_7' __ QRL;? FILED uIs.439 CR.P.C BY THE Anvocarm FOR
' THE E$TITIONER BRAKING THAT THIS HGN'BLE COURT HAY
BEVPLEASED To ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CRIHE.NO.150/2003 OF HEBBAGGDI P.S.. BANGALGRE
DISTRICT, WHICH IS amen. EOE THE orrmxcms P/UXs.3o4

IPC R/W SEC. 32, 34 OF KARNBTAKA EXCISE ACT.



wn\\aav"%"' we:-w-manna no-Is:

mu-'swan:-\Iru1\r1 u,fiWEI  Wail?" Wflfliflfllflfila Mia?" EQJUKI            C

'§:....tt

This petition coming on far mrclmc this day, the
court made following:-

ORDER

In the light cf the imam’

learned cmunsel far V the __ :;2~_:}Iii:iti;:$n~err, V’

petition is dismissed as: VA

LV