High Court Karnataka High Court

Gurumurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Gurumurthy vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 November, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH" C(:)L5R"E" OF KARNATAKA AT
BAN(}AL()RE

DATED11nsTHEufi"nAYrnrN0vmwBER2mm

B l€FORE

THE1uEvBLEAHLJUSTHHZHULUvADLGdL@wE$fi%

(3mwHNALPETn10Nrgxagxofizmfii V VV"

BETWEEN:

GURUMURTHY %y,
AhK45YRSJVO1}HHUAHH *
COOLH3 MA x_-P_u,
IUOCEHKKAPPANAHALL1:_f«V'
CHALLAKERETALUK "'-7:  xfi .
CHHRADURGA[H§fi-fz¥ ;'T"flETNONER

(By®1KAL§EM§LLAHsHARnF,ADV)
AND:V

THESTAjEOFKARNATAKA

fi «BYITSSTATEPUBLKZPROSECUTOR
'g*HKB$COUR¥QFKARNATAKA
'.BANGALQRE4 uJ&BPONDENT

(&g§@xVRAMAKRmHNAJ«Iw)

'i"H'I'S CRLP IS FILED U/S439 CR.P.C BY THE

 '=. A--!);i/(.)CAT¥i FOR THE PEITITIONER PRAYING THAT
  " {THIS H(.)N'BLE C()URT M/-\Y BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE
' -VTHE PETR. ON BAIL IN CR.N(). 88/2{)f)8 OF THALK

W



I J

POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF .I'.M.F.C.. IVI(')L..AKALI\/IURU IN C.C.NO. 393/2(_}()8,
FOR THE ()FFENC7ES P/U/S 302. 397 AND 201 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITEON COMING ()[I"\F--.»{FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY. THE COURT 
FOLLOWING»   

ORDER

Pe.titi0ne:’ has S()i,lgI1[ “thy g1″aht ()f…I3;L5l in CoI1meL=I’i”<J_n with

Cr.No.88/U8 of Thz1Ia1I< p0Ii_cc..7

2. It is alleged vtI’1;-It pe{.éIii{)x’2.é:i’ 2iI’m’}g with”ot’he1′ accused

have mbbed {I1e”§’u~>.,Id»:.1zid___Czas;I1″of the deceased and committed

her InLI1’dei-‘.._junr_I II-“»_r:1I”a:.v’aII’E~::..:~7. Imving made: the ciczzd body into

f,)IQ:LfI€S5[/.I1i(.).’WI1 tE’1E:”;s:-uaaie at diI’fc1’en£. pI_ac.cs;. A{ the énstzmce of

_ “i’hi_s” ‘peII’i£j.()nE:;tO_111;: golden ()1″nz’uncnts which were on the body of

iIA1€,udecc.;:$c’gI.– were :’c<;ove1'ed .

I 3. Heard.

‘.4

4. AL’C(“)l’Lii:Eg_ to the learned CT(>Lii’1sci ik”>i’ the pet’i:i<_)i'1c1',
peiitionci' has hceii i"aisc:E}:' iinpiicatcd in this case and only on

circumstzmtiz-ii evidence the case: has been hoi:;E'ed.

5. LC:-lI’I}€3C’i G()’v’L’I’I1IT1CI][ Pleaidcr has SubI11i}'[€Li..iI’i].£.i:{‘ 5I}_1e1’::

are eyewitnesses; to the incident.

6. Having I’€g21I’d to the faci_s* zmdifiiifcu1’n$t2mCc’s«__ofawe

case. it is not a fit case. for g:’€i1;1__L>f’ béi’i~I_. 2 Accoiidii.:}g.i.},{,H p.9ctiL.i(_s:-1 ‘

is dismissed.

sal-

” ….. IUDGE