H N Anjanappa vs State Of Karnataka on 20 November, 2008

 % Kama msmxcr.

IN THE HIGH coups" or KARNATAKA AT BANG;§f§.OF_§§"  
DATED THIS THE 20*" DAY or h§OV/E'M8_E'.R, ad§:73%  
BEFORE     j%   
THE ¥~i0N'B£.E MR. JUSTICE kAS§+cK 3." ra.1;<1cH%I<5kEs;1'k 
cm. 9e1':'r1c;M_NoA53:-5Qri%%*2oos   %
BETWEEN  %      A
1 H NANJANAPP_A--    'y    
s/0. NARAYAf;!APE?;5\_, %  %  
AGED ABOW" 31.VY'5AR5"-. '~«._v  _   
RJAT HOGALAG.E.%§.E vxaaass '. &

SRINIVA3APL}R5A T;;::;us<.» 
KOLAR:.1DIS_TR'I<LT..AVV_   

2 RAMEsH'._ " _    
s/0. THIRUMALAPPA  
AGED. ABQUT 2.7 vaaas

 . é R/A3*fwARAYA~APu R._.\lIi_lAGE
 'r~4u'rHAKAz3ALa,z PANCHAYATH
 $RI?$.IVASA.PURA_TALUK
'KO!..AR' D1:~5TRICT;

   SRIN.IVA_€r % 
 g 5/0. VENKAYANNA
%  'AGED ABUUT 25 yams
  kgiz/AT»;g+oGALA_}tss-:fs'~Ei;!s the Court made
the foflowing: I  .   _  " 

          
The reg;,%9nde;,ghysgggtefeasAcrnme No.190 of 2008 against
the petitioners fbrjiheVsffeh.¢es:_1i3unishabie under Sections 143,
14,7, s%14s,%~:ai:23,%hhh3.?,4 am «3Q_?.vread with Section 149 of the Indian

Paris; Cede.  

  the prosecution in brief is that on 13""

-- --«%.T1§ugeust, 20G8_t:__he petitioners assaulted the campiainant, Srinivas

 fend his  Gavi Raddy.
   3;§Sri Shiva Raddy, the learned counsel appearing for the

 ',§L.__¢pet'itui<$Vher submits that ail the offences aiieaed, except the one

QEH.



under Section 307 of the Indian Penal code, are of bailable

nature. He submits that on account of the political riya.iry9.:".j'th'e.

petitioners are being falsely implicated in the case."  

complalns of the delay on the part of:-'th'e"«lnjtfirredvl.llpersonskln3 it

approaching the hospital. His last sVubmlsslo'n_V_is thatthe 

sustained are of simple nature. L» y . _ _ _. _
4. AN. Ramakrishna, the learn--edT_Hi'e'--hA.Couit--1:-ioyemment

?leader for the respondent sd'brnlts"th§al;7 thevviyivnyestlgation is not

complete and the tcyhjarge it The wound
certificate ln is towsbe collected. He
brings to my y.n–otlce:’~that1:;t.he assaulted the victims
on their vitaliiparts knife.

5. The .povyer r:onfes*redl’o’n’:l’thls’ Court by Section 438 of the
Cofde”‘–of Procedural ls exercisable only in exceptional

circu%nsta¥n’cesj:’«i.e§”where the accused persons appear to have

:7fi’iaeen falsely or if they are not likely to misuse the

* ~ –«lil;erty.. if the”y__a1re elven the relief of anticipatory ball.

.._é5._’In–.r’the instant case, I do not see any exceptional

‘circnmstances for the grant of anticipatory bail. The offence

figié