High Court Karnataka High Court

S.Mainu @ S.Khajamohiddin vs State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
S.Mainu @ S.Khajamohiddin vs State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2010
Author: Arali Nagaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CRICUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY or JANUARY,,"' 

BEFORE

THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTIs{.§E  r:AGARA§J': 

CRIMINAL PETII'I_ON 1<io;;*zo33/2n%,1o"  
BETWEEN: M  V 2 

S.Mainu @ S.KhajaIno'o'iddir.iVAV'     
S/0. S.Gudusab,     V

Aged about 25 years, *    
Tailor, 1' -j   '
R/o.Tir1.1m;iiq_''e'di,_ _  
Kandrgi Siddappa Stre.et,~..La1a Kaman,
Be11a1'y,,   =   A A

 ' _   v    Petitioner.
(By Sri. J . Betsavaraj ,' A 

 ':_V   . ofkarnataka,
A ~by__Sub.,_In_spector of Police

Brut'-epet' Po.1ic-e Station Beilaxy
Rep-r__esented.r by Public Prosecutor,

 Circuit Bench, Dharwad.  Respondent.

 ".jj{EA3y S.ri. §5.H.Gotkhindi, HCGP)

:~..r"""""**"""""--"'



This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to allow this petition and order" to 'enlarge
the petitioner on bail in (Crime No.151/2009 "o£"'-Briicepet
Police Station) C C No. 1285/ 2009 on the fil_<E.'LWof--«Ad_'d'l.:_._CeiVil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) 81, JMFC Bellary.    it --  

This Crl.P is coming on for oi*dere¢_   

made the following:
o Ri'D._V§3  V

This petition u/ 439  accused
No. 1 in Crime No.  Rs, Bellary. This
petition is opposed by by filing Written
statement    the sides.
2.  Amirunnissa, his father

S.Goodoosab, -sister'."Bladurunnissa and his younger

brothfis Rafeeqiarehirespectively accused Nos. 1- 5 in the said

lease'; . Initially the "said case was registered against all the

 the offences u/secs. 498A, 3043, 302 and

 _ 201""«t/v.{'"seicfi34¥ IPC. After completion of the investigation

 iippncharge sheet has been filed against all the said accused for

ithie"'of:fences L1/secs. 498A, 3048, 306 r/W 34 IPC and also

it   3,4,6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

rrmw



3. On a careful reading of the complaint filed by the
Mohammed Shariff, the father of the deceased,f(vlrife:"Ovf this

petitioner (AM) it could be seen that all   41

to 5 are alleged to have ill.~--=trea.ted«'_: in

connection with the demand of gold  cashiias  is it

not in dispute that the accn:3efd..pl\Eos..V' 2. to hail
by the Trial Court.  petiiti'oncerdWho isliaccursied No.1 and
all the other accused  san1e~.fo'oting. There is no

allegation of:..rnis'_useof:.   accused who are

granted bail. U'nVder-V._theseplicirrcurlistances and having regard

to the facts and of the case, I do not find any

special relasonv,to' rejectithe present bail petition. Hence

  th¢*'fi9110iWif?'g: '     aaaaa 

ORDER

f__The.pr;e’sent petition filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C. by ‘fl

ii.”»~’~___l’~».accused__ii*No.1 in Crime No.151/2009 of Brucepet police

rstaitijo’n, Be-llary is hereby allowed. This petitioner shall be

firlllarged on bail on his furnishing a self bond for

W

Rs.40,000/– aiong with one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the Committal Court, subject to’:v:c’oif1ti’itions

that:

a) he shaii not, directlyjofi ti1«.riA1:¢c1;;:,};jtitagglptgr Hwithj’

the prosecution >e\_/’idet’1’c_ei1’Iior he it
the prosecution ‘ V V i V

b) he shall attend ‘C’ou”i~:t and Trial
Court on fail unless
idispensed with for

“*afa.1i_(_i”lifeasonsfifA it ‘ ‘

A copyvlof ‘thee opeifettiarei’*plortion of this order shall be
sent forthwith -the Veofiiftiittal Court concerned for

info1’matiof}.21n.d eompliance;

Sdy:

JUDGE