High Court Karnataka High Court

Ishwar Sharma S/O Late A N Sharma vs State By Chikkajala Police on 9 June, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Ishwar Sharma S/O Late A N Sharma vs State By Chikkajala Police on 9 June, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Aged 61 years,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF 
BANGALORE   J 2  %

DATED THIS THE 09"' DAY 01:  T  &    

THE H()N'BLE MR. JUS'ITIzCEV

 

CRIMINAL pmn1oxNo.2emoF2_g_.;g

Ishwaf       
S/0 late    V_  '

R/at Sun Rise Fam1,:  , 
Hcgganahally Villagg, --_ '

Kundana Hobli,

Devanahalli Taluk,

Bangalore Rural "   A

...PETITIONER

(By Sri:}N?«;1}a;i§jun:§§;i};.}3A;'R' §§':;§ri.'SV;K.'Viénkata1-eddy, Adv.)

state  chikkajexa ?j¢nae.%
 '_'4(By.:Sr:'i}'I't'f,{:.Sid41g;g#i§gaiah, HCGP)
'VT.VVT'n§s.._('.§riminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of

 'praying to enlarge the pefitioncr on bail ia the event of
his._ in C.C.No.124/08 of Chikkajala P.S., pending on the

...RESPONDENT

(“Fill

file of the Civil I1zdge(}r.Dn.) & JMFC., Devanahalfi, which is
registered for the offence P/’U/8.143, I47, 148, 4:2_7,_4323, 324,
114, 307 r/w Section 149 of IPC and ‘cf the
Indian Arms Act. ii i

This Criminal Petition ‘fair the,

Court made the following-

Petiticncr ha; spugn: anticipatory bail in
cannectiqn«’iz§it.h Chiklcajala police uf

Devan:iiitti:!i’*;fiiliii§ci: t i

-aIIe3idd–ii~’iithat on 17.8.06 around 3.00 am. this

one Surendra Singh and others have

i ii the property of Arunachalam company and

it to 16 from entering into the land and at tha

1 f imigatson of this petitioner, accused mi said to have fired

ii gun shots from an unlicensed gun and accusw No.3 assaulted

C.Ws.2 to 5 with club and other accuwd assaulted other

J”

witnesses by hands and also damaged the farm
house therfiby causing less of Rs.15,00O/–. ” ‘L A4

3. Ham the learned Cdi2.nseI’_’ {mg

lmmcd Government

4. According the the land belongs
to pcfitioher:hi:nsei_f falsely implicated in
the c:as*'<é'Va'i::&i~ as a safety measme the

gym shbtfiias air.

‘ ” éiovhrnment Pleader has resisted the peiificn.

the last occasion this Court had directed the

p¢tiffahé;r’s Counsel to keep the petitioner present before the

n ‘T as an apprehension was expressed by the investigating

“agency that petitioner is not making himself available to tha

invcsfigatizzg agancy. It is seen that in connection with land
JP?”

dispute that alleged incident has taken place. The petitioner is
very much available before the: court. Hence, ..inzijI~..not be

difficult to secure his prcsemce for the

Accordingly, petition is allnwedwlnfixeleinfiénl ofilhaii

peititioner by the Chikkajala p¢is;c;n¢ be ‘m{leased\ l.;llali anti

his executing a personal for l§iS.5(.).’,t’}0i(};{– 3 for
the said sum in l36r’0(‘i subject to the
following condiiiensii’ ‘i ii ii i

(i) available to the

as and when required.

(ii)     the presccufnn

witnessem 

(iii)..«.%gHcii~ shallleaize the country winm print”

A ” ~ , V this Court.

‘He sisal: am for regalar ha’: witlin 996 month of

hinaficst and release.

l/fly’

(v) He shall mark his attendance on§:a%.V_V:i:l_’f{}rtnight

preferably on Sunday betwcen 5.00

p.m. before Chikkajala. .pQIi€;é o;-«leis;

7. It is submitted petitltslzer
that since already iiix£§;stiga{i'(§rlll.i§ ‘¢u;l3;g3;.3lc:léd’h11dVEchau*ge sheet is
filed, a wamxnt petitioner. Heme,
cxecutziotl may appear before
the: from today in connection

with in film it is for the concerned Court
to releafié conditions.

saié