Pradeep S/O Radhakrishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2008

0
124
Karnataka High Court
Pradeep S/O Radhakrishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2008
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
 

IN THE HIGH couar OF KARNATAKA AT BANGjA2.Q§é%}%%   A'

DATED THIS THE 17'1"" DAY 0F.0CTOQBE.F:{,";;i4OE§V§34'    V

BEFORE

THE HGMBLE MR. JusTIcE"A$HQ:< 3; I-iIPé€;};i§AC§{EVRi 
cm... PETITIQN No;4oi%6AoF%A%zoos   

BETWEEN

1

  

% - .THE_STATE os KA}-RNATAKA
43}: siimramn mace
 'R59. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
 4. HI€3_H._C€JUR':"OF KARNATAKA
% !3AHGALO%RE--1

THE PETITIO NE RS PRAYING

PRADEEP 5/0 RA£2'HAKRIS'?ii'w§Af'
AGED ABOUT gweagszs  . 

Kumu s/6%   % %   %
AGED AB0UTV27..Y§ AR8'   'a V

ct:AN£J:éA S.I<:1%%::ié:i,oA.':s;;'1:'§%%'%V'    %
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS  _  *-

KOTE PAISARI-V _
VIRA,3;PE"i7TALUi(' ~ ..

ALL ARE R/AI cHEfiaNA*{AM}:cTE

 ',   "  ..... .. V

   ,,. :~...V(vV'Vlif'1r'V.='.AV.V'.:3;l"--"»;I K SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE)

(EY SR1 HQNNAPPA, RC6?)

 PEIHZQNERS

 RESPONDENT

THIS CRLP I5 FILE8 U/S5439 CRJIC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR

TO ENLARGE THE PETRS. ON BAIL IN

cmo.5o:/08 (FIR nmoo/209:3 DATED 93.9103) o;:;V~ns::)1§,¥xnr>£,im’
mace smnozu, MADIKERHCOORG msmxcr wmcu 5:33. Fen,

THE OFFENCE P/U/5.143, 325, 324, 326 AN_D.,.1{4.9 0:? ‘IPC:.»

THIS PETITION comma on F0R:=._oR!_;’:E!;iSA’T1§I$::”m9.?;._,,ATHE %

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: V
Qansgn n
The respondent regisiz-§¢_i*’e:d of 2098 against
five accused persons’inc!ud£nqJ’1Vthé._Vpntétioners for the
offence punishabie ;1n’d;éEVS.e;<.%ti6p:§'A: 3"2s,#324, 325 and 149

of the Indian Peniil ' I '

2. The:’:;as_@* nf t}’.§.~-..§rn#en§’t§o’n”in brief is that an 3′” Juiy,
2008, the acnu1éed br;:té’!!_;}”a§@ss.n:§;§»n!téd the complainant, Saving on
acgonnt o’f_§&G<2::Ind's"'défnulfin repaying Rs;50/- (Rupees fifty

oniy)Q b:é'§!A.$nvhAght by the petitianers was turned down by

the Sé§;si6k}f;~AC£§bi3';f!§,_,_ :$y*:%.s order, dated 5"' August, 2008.

Sriu K['$fihari, the learned counsei appearing for the

4ig;§e£§t§'<§fr:<$§r'}'s§1bmits that no overt acts are attributed to the

Z .n "' z:etlti6né1?s. That the prevocation on the spat was provided by

h' 1fjthAe'4"';nn':plainant enly, is his further submlsslcn. He aiso

.V.""c:drnplains of the delay in filing the charge sheet.
9324.

6. I at: not find any good grounds far the gra«a5{1::”

Bail fietftion is dismissed.     % «V % A

Inn

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *