Mujeed Pasha @ Muju S/O Shaikh … vs State By Jayanagar P S on 26 November, 2008

.75.? iwe-i

COUR? OF KARNATAKA HIGH KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-“GI-I COUR

f§§.”=.E ‘3″‘§t°*:c,>.; fifi 537..-:7t’§ $flil§.’§’ TS? K3-‘iRE~§?:.3TAKP:., EF;E:3SA{:Q§.E

Bafigg wazg wga 2% $3 3%? SF %$¥EMEER 3§§aOO

§E?GRE

?%E %fl§’§LE MR&J$$T1£g ASEQK E §I§¢H;$EE:_ C

CR&.?,§$.éQ$fii§F §§$fi71*O*C

BE’;-‘E”%§EEE%E

EEEEEE ?a3HA Q g§a3,=_*»
35$ §fiEEKBC3%B§Afi, _H’_
xgag Rama? ysyvgaaa; =_*
msa? §§.153, * ‘. :-

3§;AKR§aEHwaRAPu£;»7;

E aazfi, aA3§:n,%aa,z ,L . =,=
$¥E§?fiZ»§A§£Rg fi%fi§&§QR§;_’ v’

,;. yawzwzoaaa

:,’$g:§§¥ag,’a§;’s$Rwfi

,%fifi,E=a,3aA35$¢:5fE§§
£fi$ C C
_3?a?§VO§v;§A§§§xé&R ?.3.
;é%3g%¢$,2A§fi3*:$HmA, aC$?;

C*$%fi;%:?§&E§ 333.433 ma.§x: B? THE P£W%A?E

§ :3 E;

C”»§g

” :§;aag£:1£$a 5? §h?%fiA5AR FQEEQE

73?§§:e&?§A§§Am$RE c:?v, waiga’ ES RESISTER£§ FQR
aggagaa ?Q§EfiERE&E mgmag §EQTE3fi.3$4 my EPC.

F

TKE

… RE$FQNflERT

%a§’?§¥§$1QmER §fifiYE%3 T8 Exnamsa $32 PETE,

uaaza Ia T33″ §$§§? 3? HES ARREST

§’§’1.;S’ E’§’EE’?.’E=$?%’ £’€.3?4;E%§E§ 3%} Ffifi. fikfifififi TXKS B&'{,

§§%RT EREE HE ?§LLQ¥Xfi$:~

matter, I am not inclined to grant the reLiefepf@&

anticipatory bail.

6. Juet because, the other two?aCcfieedfare~

released on bail, this petitiofieg is not eatitlee ty

to the relief of anticipaterj’bail#*Et”i3Vegan to
this accused(§etitieeer hetein[,tQAsurteade£ and

seek the regular bail 5_VttVt

7. Ehei eeiayj Qt :6¢ §a§a in filing the
complaint apeeate ta the feat ef the accused. Be
it as itv mag; [ehethet “tee. delay in filingt the
complaint :3 fatai fie tee erosecution has to be

decided on the eoncluaiofi of trial.

.:’8: Thisa petition for anticipatory bail is

diSmiSeed}«ta_*et

sa/-%_%

“‘ ” “‘A’,.. 7” “””” “‘”””V’I I ll\n7l’I uvunl ur RHKIVMIHKH HID” LUUKI U!’ KARNATAM HIGH

Jguigfifi

Msu