High Court Karnataka High Court

Shakila vs State Of Karnataka on 21 May, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shakila vs State Of Karnataka on 21 May, 2009
Author: N.K.Patil & V.Jagannathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARMA TAKA AT BANGALORE V-  

DATED rms THE 2181' may or HAY,  V T ''

:Present: fl ' .
me HOMBLEMR. Jusr:c5r:.K.='A 7:3,."    A; %  %
me Honms me. JUS r:cs%:;r:% JA sA»mm~%       
WISHC '72 01:    

EETWEEN:

SHAKELA _ 
"  svsrmomen

(SUO MOTCJ}

AND:

$TATE O? KAFZNATAKA " "
BY ITS SECRE'?M2Y- ' V
DEPARTMENT {}Fv.P7{OME 
VIGHANA SOUDHA , "
BANGALQRE »  V " "
STAYEQN .!~{€'3U$E OFFICER.

1,v'v:3:~wvA:v~:A'mx,séuRvA PC>LICE'$Tfi.TtON
HNDERTHFE cmcsza MSPECTOR

v:'.--m'A,PURA BEVABLARALLI ?LAUK
    h"  RESPONDENT

” V ‘ (8521. 3. Msmosgnn Afi-*,A FOR RESPONDENT )

4_ = Amzs wpm: as FILES uwoaa Anrmes 226 3. 227 01: THE
coasnrunaw or mma, on THE BASJS or 1:45 TELEGRAM SENT av

ma E-“¥£T3Ti*f.)NER PRAYING ro PRODUCE HER son AMJAD KHAN $10
_V $.HAM:3HEERKHAN AGED 20 YEARS mzorze was czcum.

V V ° ‘ ‘V VTHI8 wpuc comma on FOR PREEJMENARY HEARING mes DAY,
= _ N.K.Pati#. J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:

A
IN}
3

$58:

This euomote writ petition has been registered on the

basis of the teiegram sent by the mother of the detinue4jeee..»_V’~V.VV’

Sri. Amjad Khan.

2. We have directed the teamed Additienai ‘ V

Advocate to take notice and ir3etrL1&:tiofé_’_’a;hc’$”~.i§:5

submission. when the matter ue

ieemed Additionat Govemment Advoceie–_hee_ med’ anattaéxavtt
of one Shri. K.E.K%hav, inspector of
Poiice, Vijayepura Circa Deveeafiefig in pared of

the amdavi: aateafées stated that, the detinue wee

arrested for section 395 of i.P,C.,
in Crinrev1:$le.t§0f;2QC9VV’Vahd_V’he was produced before the

;JfP».’–!,_F.C:_jE}e§;ena!ja!iihen’£’:;5′.’20tE at about 10.50 pm. and the

to produce the said Amjad Khan before

ce.nma.a.2aes at 11.00 am. Acoordingty, the said

Kh*ae*:. been produced before the J.M.F.C.

ee;:e:ehe;:i on 5.5.2009 and the said Court hae ordered

pgyaaeeaetody of Amjad Khan tn: 11.5.2009 tor investigation

On 11.5.2009, the eeurt has ordered for judicial

g’
If

I,
f………………._,___________

/”

custody till 20.52% and it was extended tiil 22.5.2009.____|_n

the fight of the statement made in para-4 of the affidavit efeu

concerned Circie inspector of Poiice, the refief §3″[Y’f

petitioner in this petition through herte!egrem4doee’e’et:1;3gEi}iveV’,

for consideration. Hence, the instant peiétioéi esietwide

of as having become infructuotie, VL”‘~:esew’ing_
petitioner to redress her gfievangei tee “‘aepr¢::;)riate
Forum, if so advised or if accordingly.
Learned Add}t§en.ei permitted
to me meme two weeks

. . ‘ . ” _.

Sd/’i.

Ezdge
Sfiiei
Fe§g”%§