High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr Sardar Khan vs State Of Karnataka By Bagepalli … on 26 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mr Sardar Khan vs State Of Karnataka By Bagepalli … on 26 August, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 26" DAY 05 AUGUST 

BEFORE

THE HON'Bi_E MR.3UST__ICE__N ANA'N4DTAy'  A

CRIMINAL PETITION N4O.3'O6'i/2'0:I"C.:I'    

BETWEEN:

MR.SARDAR KHAN

S/O MASTHAN .  
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS  _ 7
R/AT NEAR ADAM MASJID A

BAGEPALLI TOWN   .  '

CHIKKABALLAPU DIST

(BY sR1.FIIi5A H:Q$éV1A'rT, Al5\)_'):  

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA_  .
BY BAGEPALLI POVLICAEASTAT-ION
CHIKKANALALAPVURADIST 
REP BY GOVERNNIENT PLEADER
HICSH. CQU-RVT OF KAPd--\!--ATAKA

 ., 9"&c"NGAI°_'UP.{_J' 

I(e5r--1sRi';vi.J'A.v'I§éLJ'MAR MAJAGE, HCGP)

  PETITIONER

 RESPONDENT

C’RL.P”:FILED u/s.A39 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE

PETITIONAER ON BAIL IN SC.NO.78/2009 PENDING ON THE FILE

7 ” OF__THE”‘ DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPURA,

WHICH IS REGD FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC IN CC
‘NO’.9’1/2009 OF BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION.

T “ii”nplicate the accused. The judgment relied upow the

doused kerosene and set her on fire. Thereafter,

neighbours and the accused shifted the deoea-ié’ed”‘*.,to

hospitai, wherein the statement of deceased..,w–as’.reeb’rd’e’df

by the Station House Officer in_,the..flreselnpcei.7(o4f’.”i’/leidicaluif

Officer, General Hospital, Bagepaillti, A

5. The learned Counse:l.”for “relying
on the judgment of SC 1021
would submit that regarding the
mentai conditionfjf circumstances,

there is not’ prirna facie ,c’a7$e.against the petitioner.

–. .,toli-:a”p–p’reciate this submission, it is

necessary it_o*s_tate_ that occurrence took place at about

9.3,f3§Lpii..m. on~._.flQ7.,(:’i5.2009 and the deceased was
T,’irnrned_Vijatel~yA”shifted to Hospitai. Her statement was

l”‘reco_rde’d:’on__ O,8.’b5.2009, she succumbed to the injuries on

Thus, the deceased was alive for a period of

T. daysfafter the occurrence. The place of occurrence is

hot’ “disputed. The deceased had no motive to falsely

rt},

‘:’3v.__,_,..g«-./u

ii”.

learned Counsef for the petitioner does not apply__._t_o the

facts of this case. Therefore, I hold that there«j”iVs:’f”p:a*i~n}a

facie case against the petitioner and he

on baif. Accordingly, petition is dism;’ssec’_ih’m;,_’:..§_’fi,s é

Jlibgnl…