High Court Karnataka High Court

Mallikarjuna Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Mallikarjuna Patil vs State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2008
Author: Arali Nagaraj
IN THE HIGH COUR? OF KARRAEAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT
Z  D WGK b-3 A30 

r-'-r""""'"'

-ea

DATED THIS Tag 5" say OF NOVEMBER

BE} FORE'.

TEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE "§RALI NEBiR$J:' =B

CRIMINAL PE?ITION No§?3é3/20é8 *.: ""

BETWEEN

1.

(‘Q

MALLIKARJUNA PAT1L:f2
3/0. GOUQAPPA GOUDA;’ -‘

AGE:2S YE§Rs}€_ “‘4 7jt ~ g
3/ 0. Bi1*ALAHL:.Nusi3: « .VI.L£–.AGE ; V
?AL:HADAGAL1gVpIsT:3EpLARY

.SANNEERREFA

s/o.EAK:RA§9A ‘_
AGE SQLEEARE,’-*

=-,3/Q;2HQLE_ITTI@I. ….

TALfiK:§IRAfiAT?I,

‘R,u1S?;~3Amgg;,

BASaVAfiAéQUbA
S/OgGOUfiAEPA GOUDA

I AGE; 3€;YE%RS

«Ax R/Q.BY&LAHUNUSI VILLAGE,
‘«_»fT&LUK: HAQAGALI,
‘_ $IET:BELLARY.

(SEE SRINEKND A. PPKCHHAPUREZ,

,.._.§”\’\–~\.._.

PEETI ‘ICLON EZRS

ADV. )

AND:

STATE oy KARNAIAKA,
BY PSI HIREHADAGALE POLlCE STRTi0N,

NOW BY HIGH COUR? %L__ ; =qL -V.
PUBLlC EROSBCUTDR. L 5 REsEoNLmN£=_,i”

(BY SR1 GOTKHINDILKHCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED u7sf43e OF CRLPdf§§AYINGV

TO ENLARGE THE PETI?IONERS ON ENTICIPRTQRY BAIL
IN” CRIME No.57/2OC8g_ 0?” ‘H1&EHADAsAL:” POLICE
S?ATION, BELLARY DISTRLCT; LN T33 EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST, ON SUCH TERMS awn cQNm1T:0N§,g

THIS CRIMLNAL PETITEQN COMISQ ON you 039335
THIS BAY, THE CGGRT PASSED TEE SOLLOWJNG:

; i%;R’fi:E R

The pefitionerikfiosil to 3 herein who are

Vrespectiveiym a¢&used’ Nos.3, 7 & 8 in Crime

Nb,E??2OD8i7§£Jifiirehadagaii Police Station have

LF_ sought for afificipatory bail.

7L”:e3rnedfHcGp.

ix2, fihié petition is seriously opposed by the

rWJ”VfiL,M,

3. Heard the arguments of both the sides and

perused the cemplaint and other meterial to5_’.

record.

4. These petitioners ere alleged to nave.eeen_”

engaged in transporting tne,_3endt’iIlege1iy in
violation of the provisiene of Section éfii) and
4{l–A) of the Mines and Minere§e;§e§ei0pment and

Regulationr Act, fi§5?} ifheyv ere: else ailegee to

have comnitteeo tHe’fo§fencee” under Sections 183
and 420 5: IPCQV Tee orfence under Section 420

IPC i$_ puniehabiet gith maximum sentence of

fimprieonmene for ? years “” and fine and the other

effeneesT%ere&epgnishable with lesser period of

xrmimprieonmentt’ The avermente of these petitioners

t<,ere that_fthey' are permanently' residing in the

t'adereee«shewn in the petition are not disputed.

Vewfnerefore, the apprehension of the prosecution

't'A,that they' may' misuse the liberty' if they ate

(

granted anticipatory bail and they mey,Eete:ahtedV

with certain conditions.

5. Having regard to the? hateze” of “tee,

offences alleged against–etheee petitiebefe’ andt

the maximum punishment presetfibed fot the same, I
feei that ends of “Lznet with 1:
they” are granted_ bat: te;g§»}gg§:§§§ conditions.
Hence, the 1:; ‘
“”” H A t V A ,k¢§bERew_5

The yresehtfgetitiefi fie hereby allawed. In
the event et tee;Eu_e%iest by the Hirehadagaii
I?_e3~iceV,._§getatioti”=V..V ;_e_: Crime No.57/2008, these
eeti::e§e§e,e5a;; be enlarged on bail on each of

them fEexfizéh:ng’ a self bond for a sum of

t;xRs,40,G@0/Qtafeng with one surety for the likesum

u”te= the eetisfaetien of the Police Officer

kFa£féS£iUq them and subject to the condition that:

W”wffi) they’ shaii not tamper with the

prosecution evidence nor shaii

/\f\'”F\”