High Court Karnataka High Court

Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 9 December, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT'. BAN

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF DECEMBER 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE   "

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.§5'49:/20.101  

BETWEEN:

1. Prakash
S / 0 Thammanne Gqwda V.
Aged about 32 Years A_ 
Tempo Driver  ' ~. '--
I-Iulihundi Village
H.D.K0te Ta1uk.__  _ _ _ 
Mysore       

2. Dharmat      i_
S/0 1ateVNéifij"u11}f1e 
Aged abdut 2?    ' ~
Hirege Maitakere   
H.D.K0teTa'1uk V "  »-- V 
Mysore I)Vistriet.V_V    ...PETITIONERS

 E3-rig .J';--b§eerdIgi';"Adv.)

AN1:'>:__     
State of }{a'rnaiaka'g:: V

 jddifiilikerei Ppliee ~Station
  its Pub1i.e"Pr0secutor
--. _. fiangaiore. -  " ...RESPONDENT

-~ ._' '"{ByiSri'.'Jij'Eiyakumar Majage. HCGF')

 CrI.P is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C

"d:Efg"--V.pr3ying to enlarge the petitioners on baii in
 "a_S'.'C.No.75/2009 before the Presiding Officer, F'I'C--II,
 "I3/Iysore, registered for offences punishable under

Sections 302, 201, 120(8) 1'/W 34 IPC.



2

This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners are arrayed as accused
in S.C.No.75/ 2009 pending trial for ”
under Sections 302, 201, 12043 :/w 34 T it

2. Heard the learned
learned Government Pleader’»llor»theV’ it
been taken through inve.stiga:t’ioii1.l:_recVords.l A’ T

3. T he accused by accused

No.1 to of deceased Vijay @

Vijayendraflas the was an obstacle for illicit

relationsehip between accused No. 1 and wife of deceased.

it 4,fi’ll’.he4vA.ie,arned Trial Judge has fixed the trial and

to the witnesses. At this stage, it

–V woultlnot proper for this court to make a detailed

iganai-ysisfllof the investigation records suffice it for me to

sltatefllthat accused No.2 and 3 had associated with

“accused No.1 who had a strong motive to commit the

murder of the deceased. There are witness s who have

“3
J

given statement); about the deceased last seen in the
V.

company of accused No.2 and 3. After their arrest,”–,the

weapons and mobile phone were seized from.._ac.cu.-sed

No.2 and 3.

5. The learned counsel

that accused No.1 has been sgrantedbail. Thereforefgthe

petitioners are entitled for b.§i1r.V.§;; parity.
The materials collecte.d”‘:aga’_ir1ls.tA No.1″land the
allegations made are not the
same as a11¢Vgy;atii{§rlg No.2 and 3.

Therefore.Vl’t1.~.¢§¥iVi is not available.

6. In.the_circiirhsta;1ces, the petitioners cannot be

re1ease’di’on bail… :A.ccordingly, the petition is dismissed.

petitioners are in custody from

learned Trial Judge shall expedite the

and; conclude the trial within a period of six

rrno–ntzhs from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd;f-

JUEGE: