High Court Karnataka High Court

Guruprasad vs The State By Managalore North … on 3 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Guruprasad vs The State By Managalore North … on 3 November, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH C(')UR'l' OF KARNATAKA AT
ISANGALORE '

l)A'I'EI) THIS THE 03*") DAY OF N()V'Ei\»IBER.2i'é()9

B E FORE

THE H0N'I;1.1'~: MR. .IUS'l'ICE HULUVA!)fv_;G..VRA:MESH 'A  

CR1 MiNAL PE'I'I'i'ION AN0,siiz2A4%'01:". 2309 A  J   7
BETWEEN: H H M

GURUPRASAD
S/O SHANMUGA. V  ;

AGED ABOUT 28 Y'EARS.,   _

R/AT KURiYADICO.MPOIJ'N'D, A A _  _

T.T. ROAD, M4AN,_CiAL;OR'EV..';   ...V-PHVFITIONER

(By 31% ii  was   AE§W\/V)
AND   A T A

TH§:sTAT£:  'IVIANGALORE NORTH POLICE
  STATE' PLIBLEC PROSECUTOR

  «HIGH Cfcuaj BUILDING
    PONDENT

 S:-iV.A' \:f'--'_. ;iAMAKR1sHNA, HCGP)

"Ti7_.?*:iS CRLP as FILE!) L:/5.439 C;R.P.C BY THE

 AA'l_)\/C)CATi€- F(*)R THE PETETIONER PRAYI'NG- THAT

'  HONBLE COURT MAY  PLEASE!) TO RELEASE
 'I'HI:€ PETITI()Nf£R ON" BAIL W CRIME NO.28/()9 OF
' " ~~M.ANGALORE NORTH P([)LiCE PENDING ON THE FILE



L2

().F }1\/IFC-H C()URT. Mxi\NC}AL(.)RE IN C .C.N().28()4/2.(}(")9,
FOR. THE ()FFENCE P/U/8.341 , 307 R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PE"FITI(_)N C()M.ING ors;'*.I«"0R
(JRDERS THIS DAY. THE COURT MA-i)E£_f"-«THE
F'OLL()WING:« e 

ORDER

Peaifiioner has sougha for g:’:,-119:1 ni’reC’ti(*>;} vs–_Eth

Crime. N028/()9 of Mam gtlE()1″tf :1\z’_V1’tl1 V A ‘

2. Heami.

3. is-r. z1i!egAc_(E”«I:.}?{at since the deceased advised the

pci_iLEi’i:;e.1* zgnd :1{fCL:-s;.er”1\E()s.E and 2 no: to conwme aieohoi,

_ theyz1$is;:1fi:E?edT_0}j. the head of the deceased and he succumbed to

{!ie_ in_jL11’ieS=_.E:’1:’e:’ in the lmspitz-1!. The z1!EegatE0n agains: the

peteitidneézi’ is that he n::s:1’ai_ned the deceased and thereafter

‘ ‘..;71c»eL::§ed New and 2. z1ss21uIted on the head of the deceased by

~»v-‘e§1<..);3;3e1'. Ez'1:"lie:' the case wag :"eg'Es£.e1"ed for the 0£"fem'e under

w/

".:J

-Section 307 of IPC, Eater after 1?, days of the incident” since the
deceased succumbed to the i11jLlE’iCS. the offence was ct:-r1V*e1″teti
into Section 302 of PC.

4. fwI:.-wing regztati to the facts and’c-irc_t.::§”i;stz1hce::.,_Lef.,Ihe

case, since the petitioner . z:’t.)hcl

5. VA-a;jVc(st’cii11-5_,I!y,_V”pet’iti()e is aklowed. Petitioner he

:’e1e.4ttsecie.. on bi/ti__i on his c’-.’-Xecuting 21 pe.rs(_)na} bond for

R$.V5(),(§{)t_}./fvhhand a surety for the said sum to the satisfztctich of

_ thecertcéhftzzid..Cet:1’t., .~;t:b_ject to the foliowing cottdétitms:

(i).. ‘t’j–}~’etit’i(‘)her shat} make himself avaimbfe to the
V’ V i1west.igat’i11g 2’tgehcy;1s and when required.

We

(ii) He simti not tamper wiih the pI”(‘).§e3{:LlEi.(.)n

wiI11esse;§.

(iii) He shut] m;=u’k his zme3ndz11’1c:3 on

between m.o «.:.m. ;1m;_5.<)<} WLTAhem :L-11¢"

c<'mcer11cd police until f1.;:'Il';'«§.§:'"<51"<.ié'rs. ' .,

Bkp.