High Court Karnataka High Court

Santhoshkumar @ Santhu S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Santhoshkumar @ Santhu S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
ANS: _i "

V.  

-1.

IN THE HIGH mum' op' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATE-D THIS THE 30%! DAY OF JULY zzws 
BEFGRE   V '

THE HON'BLE MR.JUS'FICE SUBHAS}§"f3'.2S.DIV'_ '   2  '

cnxgman m'rmon :m;3o3?Lm *' fin}  %    V

WFWEEN:   _     

1. Sa:at1:1osh.kun1ar@ Santhu  
SI 0. Prakash,
Aged 24 years,  .
Chamanahalli ViIlagi:.,_ '~ ..
Maddm' Taluk, ' '
Mandya Distxict.

2. Venkatcsh zwurthy @7<.Babu' @ 'samjsath;
S/o- Byafmryéppa. % .j      A
Aged19j{eats'_,.   '
Vijneswarfi-fi8gé--~1:_aV. .. "
Suxzicaxlakaftct  _  _
BAN'GALGRE;~.'f-._ -   % % .. PETITIQNERS

(By Sxi. A. N."--Rgdha1:.dé1§:1a,:}3;d§.)

By Boddabslaatangaia Paiice
Repreaented 

--  The State  Pmsecuior
 High C@ur$[Buiidings,
  a;§NGAL@mt. .. RESPONDENT

  (By  M. Nawaz, Ad:il.S.P.P.)

%     This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
 "praying to enlarge the petitioners on baii in Crime No.35/06 of
"Doddabeiava11gaJa Police Station, which is regstered for the

ofiencc p/2113.143, 147, 148, 307, 302 Rlw. Sec.149 ofii'-'CL



This Petition conning on for Oxtiers this day. the Court made
the following:

ORDER

The Doddabeiavangala Police registered a 4′

No.35/2006 on 5.5.2006 for an ofienee

Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 302 11;:

2. Allegation is that, atvnahout

complainant aiong with two deceasedstet-e Vet; a motor
cycle. The said motor W.-he ‘by a Tata Sumo
vehicle. The aceusedv’came”‘o*ht:’of and assaulted
the deceased. from the scene.

Based on the was made. In the
eomplaintgethet that 15 persons were there.

however, he” épexsons. As tlar as these two

4… their ate not revealed by the complainant.

ejsims to be an eyewitness to the incident. in

insofar as accused No.5 is concerned,

V ‘Whose'””–nam’:e Wes also not reflected in the complaint or in the

H H ” 4.44’st.s:;ementV’of the compl.aman’ t, has been enlarged on bail by this

eovmgzi Criminal Petition No.2s93/2097. It is submitted that,

‘these accused were apprehended on 17.12.%(}7, since then. they

A” in custody.

(E, .

-3.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that. the
complainant being an eyewitness has seen the accused and has
also named them. Subsequently, the Police deleted the nsmes of
those accused, Whose names were nefiected in the
these accused have been apprehended. He v
that, there is no material to proceed against flnlse ‘ 9
othexwise, if they are released, tlley

imposed by this Court.

4. Sri. P.M.NaWaz, 1′ _ Publlc” Prosecutor
submitted that, the 15 persons

committed an ofience-h,’ !1c:§s:rev¢’re3t’;ll he mention all the

names. out _in1 A’ …V_f’nrthe;E”-statement. he has named these
persons this clearly shows involvement

of these offence punishable under Section

. r Al”5,l’E\’fe3i’_”as’T:sgainst accused No.5, similar allegations were

made was also not reflected in the FIR or in the

” “4co1;n’pl2′.2int 5: in the statement of cw»-2. It is only in the further

llstat;-rnient, this accnsed’s name has been stated after a long gap

ll I find that, when accused No.5 has been enlarged on

bail, thfi Said benefit be given to these accused also. %

1 -4-

Accordingly, the pcizition is allowed. The petitioners are
enlarged on bail subject to the following oonditionsz .

1) Petitioners shall execute personal ”

Rs.25,000/- each and two surities for flit: — ii

the satisfaction of the !ea.med_ _.Ses_sz’on$’ 4′

2) Petitioners shaft mark their ,
month before the Ju1’isc:.’i€;t:75;_naI pe.ii£:e,fi ” 1 i

3) Petitioners shall fBg11Iar§;;..gippec£x Lgefgre the zéarnéd
Sessions Judge{ _ 3 i V’

4) Petitfoner3*–shz1Il I * _ _ i1iiih.. prosecution

witnessiés