High Court Karnataka High Court

Jayram vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Jayram vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
. _ 1 _ 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEM:I?:ER; 

THE HON'BLE MR.JU:§'fioE* Nil'_\_N§A'i\$fi)I'\,'.,u'VV4V, 
CRIMINAL PETITI_ON No;i4324/20.10 ' V   
BETWEEN: M 'V V V. . 

Jayram '

S/o.I\/Iadhu Naika 7

Aged about 23 years  _ __ to -'
R/a suraga, Jéikkariahaliiei _   V_ I
Bannerghatta    it  
Anekal 'Fa1u'1:_  '   - A A

Bang'a1ore  i "i
» ~ x    ...PETITiONER

[By-Srfi M'.i\rIo1A1a~ii Kimiéx, Adv.)

' :AN.D:».  " it

The  Karnataka

By I-xléiiagur police station.
 " ...RESPONDENT

‘(;’3},}:”Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, HCGP)

This Crl.P is flied under Section 439 Cr.P.C

‘ praying to enlarge the petitioner on ‘oaii in Cr.No.63/O9

of Halagur P.S., Mandya District, which is registered for
the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC.

44_2Vvv

This petition coming on for orders this the
Court made the following:

_ Petitioner is arrayed as .ac’ct’1:;.efld’..A No.1′ in Crime

No.63/2009 registered for an ofien1ceA.puriishab1’e

Section 392 of IPC.

2. Heard the :ea;_.’:n¢a.g petitioner and
the learned Go’ve_rnme”rit Piea’der__ have been taken

through theVi1iV’e’s.tigation’ records.

3. , inVe4st.iga:tion records would reveal that

eifigiorier is “‘inv_o_1ved in several ro er offences

‘ §)7unishablVe.i1n_der Sections 392 and 395 of IPC. In the

‘case on hand, petitioner was responsible for committing

decoitfof Innova car bearing registration No.KA.4}./ M

A 51′ ” and later transporting the same to Maharastra for

,, igeirig Sold there. iv: &Q«*’€/,\_/,’¢,\,,i,..,.:«.C2,’,L

_ 3 ilii

4. Considering the existence of prima facie case

against petitioner and his antecedents, at this stagehe

cannot be granted bail. Accordingly,

dismissed.

I138.