High Court Karnataka High Court

Raghavendra S/O Dattatraya … vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra S/O Dattatraya … vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 September, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER :;i.OU9

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IVIR JUSTICE HULUVADIIE-_   O 

CRIMINAL PETITION NOfi.78Q2'AOIi'--O2tIQ9..: *   'V S O}
BETWEEN: O O O A .
RAGHAVENDRA <,'_

SON OF DATTATRAYA OH/«TOE. _  

AGE:27YEARS 4 '. .  , 
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE 'AND CAGI2ICPLI'I;TU.RE

R/O. 3~IO'OLv;Ii,;TAfj;   PETITIONER

' O  (EY 'SRI'I.C.R:."~-EATIL, ADV.,)

AND:  

O 1'  ST2ITE'~OII' KARNATAKA
% BY 'ITSv--.PUBLIC~-PROSECUTOR
 DHARvJAD_   RESPONDENT

(I_3Y SRI A.K. NAVALGIMATH, HCGP)

ZTHIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

 439--._ CR.P.C PRAYINGTO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON
gBA1.L HUBLI VIDYANAGAR PS. CR. NO.151 OF 2009 FOR

 _'  THE ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 307, 506
" V. .._.iF-'C, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC II COURT,

HUBLI.
Jéu'



THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner has sought for grant of bail

with Crime No. 151 / 2009 of Vidyanagar Polic’e”Sta’tioi1:for ” is

offences punishable 13/8 448, sol: and..5o£:{o£’ rec”

allegation that petitioner wanted to irqarry theco3’nplai;narit_:Vlu

and was following her. Thereafter, v;rhen”shle_’c’lidiV:I;1ot oblige
to marry him, having intoiithe house he is said
to have assaulted on her.:.face’ “othe’r’i_e.arts of the body

and threatened her} of d’ire”conse’quences.

_ Heard-. both thei*cio”u–nsel for the parties

to the learned counsel for the petitioner,

been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner

is appearing for BA. Examination. There is contradiction in

iithieaversion of the complainant as to the use of weapon. The

Alinjtired has been discharged from the hospital. Accordingly,

vi “sought for grant of bail.

J/V

2. It is submitted by the learned Government

Pleader that investigation has not been completed.

3. in the case on hand, as per the prosecution

story, the petitioner had developed liking

complainant. When she refused to oblige th€i’«i:\lv’O1″‘Ci–5i3:i

petitioner, petitioner said to have:’attacked.< her fam-1 caiised,

some injuries. However, what is ibein–g'noticed'~as«.

prosecution is that injured to have .];ie'efii"..;~liisChargedii'

from the hospital.

4-._ ii p In circuna_sta_nces, to enable the prosecution

to file thelcliarge -she_eiit;«.._is’ince the incident has taken place

du_;ri’ng__iithe rnonth______of June the petitioner’s case may be

‘ co’1i.sidveredffo’r.__grant of bail on or after 53″‘ October 2009,

‘subject ‘to: executing a personal bond for a sum of

Rs.ii25,(i)Q0ii/i– (Rs.’I’wentyfive thousand only) and one surety

ii iiiorgthei like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned

Jjfo-V