High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr Santhosh S/O Nanjaiah vs State Of Karnataka By Magadi … on 18 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mr Santhosh S/O Nanjaiah vs State Of Karnataka By Magadi … on 18 March, 2009
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
Au}

<:r~2Lj1?{:~«z::;_[s<3/Qeocgs

rm THE mar; COURT 0? HARMATAKA AT  
DATED THIS THE 23th DAY..OF_ :v:Afse'C;'1§1" i~5{§(§ §':   "
BEFORE  x «1  ' V 
'ma HOWBLE £31'. .;:;s';?*'1e;=.5;.'§E'n*r~10NER

(By 8111. K.;},Go;}i, Afilvfg.    .. . 1' 

AND:

 'V '.   A ..... .. 7
'  By .Maga<:{i Pfiliikg,
 §Re1;%. by jP1:}3'ii¢'vF?rc%ecutor,

H§gh«.TCQm*'t:'ComVp3fiX,
Baizgalare. -- --  1=

' ..5F=?E§SPONDEI7*€T

«(By s£i'..5.V?.«R5£i1a1aishna, HCGP}

  " '=T'h:is Criminal Peiition is filed Eilldfiif' Saciion 439 of C3:.RC.,

 ;:sr_aj:i.,t1g",' to reiease the petitio11er;'Accused N02 on bag} in

 ._¢T¢'Cr'.:N¥e<A:"£,¢_d Smtfiaivaflxamma having iiiicii intimacy with asghers.

-. 'fiécuscd f\'§z:2§__A'§§ came :0 know that an 1?'.G7.2908, Pawathamma

 :a?é15§   to Bangaiare. He pianned with ether accused to

h  --éfifiairiaie Smi.Pa1*s;a.thamma, G1; that night, the accused tack

 A.._§%?1xva€}1:amma im an autoxickshaw belonging to Accused

 N0.4j i'*$agaraj Shettil/Kio a lonfily place and kfiied her in



(A3

CRLP; N<3.39!20C1'}

auterickshaw anti also rtzmoved hfii' armaments and §i1§_ bad};

partiafly" to dastmy the identification of the person,  1

and the preseni petitienfir/A::<:u$es:i No.2  V£;'L%i'€Stt3*C}.  --r:;tnri°--.,

11.08.2008

. A1: the instance sf Ac;:§us¢;§1′[AF%R§;_[1fiixti”2;1;r;;r§;;’a:;$2e::1fi~.._ K

Accused No.2, omaments ef t11;?: (_i46iC€3’M;€’$ifi§: .’§31fi€1gf3’§:§.’A~§;s%i*£§§ “iV§’§:’S ‘.§3i&L’V§«’i?’3’*;>.,

broker were rascovereti and h V V. «V ‘ V

3. Leaineti coungeiv the afleged

30511′: rem-every 0f ‘ the présént

petitioner] AccuSe;;’~,,,:N’_1c>.2 éhas ‘ .:.¥3ée&:1A«”‘i§is;t;1y«VVj’iinpiisatezi azid he is

nefiriitxg {Q do’ WiVtV1:”;< 'efience. He fiuthez" submits that

Accused N033 :«;=.I'v1<:'1VV'=%f-».E.'i.-.»:tV,'\zc;: enlarged on bail anti therefsrfi, GI}

the g1f<;;§ii19ici.0f firmseni petitienm" is aim ttmitltéii for baji.

~ __(3ov'{. Plsader submits {hat Accuscé $19.43: was

rélséfiézzrl vcV$i1&V"f£1'3._e'g:'{§£un€1 that the bead bady was £33933 in his auto

-f’iCkSfi.iéE1X?;”‘-v”:§E.?}’i?c?xf;’€&S {mm Accusad Ficus’, Gflljf Silver aI1k1et3 of the

‘A “»c¥. ;t:*:<::~'-,.*;$&d Viifias sesizeé. As {ha §}I'€SE'i1t petitioner aiezie plfidged {ha

__&T~gO'1d'éIi€§.aments 3f the deceaseé and at 11313 mstgnce, the I'€:COV€I"j;' of

.. ornaments ware made and £112 prosecution has mafia 911% a

n ' " prima facie case fer the ofihncc allegad against €118 petitianer.

L/

J,'.::».

CQL,P.Na.39/230%

E3. Case sf the presccutien cannot be drisbeiievecri he

graund that there is use direct avidence. fit this stagé; iiAA:ia3i1:e:§3§;*–“0&:vb

said that there is 3:19 gamma facie case fe:3_r>¥;?:1:i éeifafice’ éulfggéd gggaisgsé » 1

the petitioner. I see no gonad ground 95:} eizf_i}ai9g&’thé

bail.

5- 113 ‘€316? ffifiiiit §1’1f;:”‘j3.73fi'{i?:iC3}I.i”‘fEiV.’j$ ‘:h:e ésa;:’iié is hfizeby

dismissed.

bI1’£7″‘