High Court Karnataka High Court

Shankar S/O Gurunath Rathod vs The State Through R/B Its Spp on 21 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Shankar S/O Gurunath Rathod vs The State Through R/B Its Spp on 21 January, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
Cr1.P.'7056 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA   jj

CIRCUYI' BENCH AT DHARWAD  

DATED THIS THE 218? DAY;Q1'fJAN.U'AR§'2(§0§9 L  " 

BEFORE .__

THE HC)N'BLE MR.JU.sm_<_:E \2';J,Ai3;ANreA T;r;-.é._I5;VVV I;
CMMINALPET1T1Q:§;§;o,¥?o56120eV9A 

BETWEEN:

1.

Shankar, ; * _
S/o Gurunéith:53a”thot1, 4′
Age abeut”2″8._yea:r?:’=, Z ‘
Occ: }\g1’i:f;u1-*!§_1:t1*ist,2″ ‘ &_ V
R/0 .R*31ad53€ii’T5~1?~3a,”–_V ‘

Gadag ‘I’a1tL’4; &_&G’aVdag’ :3_istz-my V

‘.2. Doddakzishanaé ‘ V
S] 0 Kemp;pa”NVayakA,*-. V ‘
O<;C:"AgI'i<:11li*:11_'ist, '
figediabogxt 2'2

" . Rio Nabapxgr Thanda,

A Gadag'i'3_ia1l§§:'& Gadag District.

3; V-£1' na 'K.4fi3}:ri-xna,
S-,I_o Sfiaivaggipa Pujar,
Occg Agxiculturist,
Agcdaiiout 19 years,
AA Gag: C0011',
' '-Rjri Singatarayanakcrre,
" I Mxmdargi Taluk,
'_ Gadag Distzict. P€titiOIlCI'S

A ~ 7 (By 3:1. Aravimu, Advocate)

Cr1.?.'?'056 of 2009

AND:

The State,

Represented by its S.P.P.,
Circuit Bench, Circuit Bench, : ‘
High Court Bufidiug,

Dhmwad.

Bewocr Police Station. _V ” V 5-.spo1_fiideVi1t_ : 1

(By&iAmmdKfimmmmmflg§€Qfl

This criminal petition. fl,1eCi”‘=.111’d£»;r”‘ Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. by the ~a,givoca’:;e fo1f”}:3:1c4 “pet1’_ti<3n'c;~':«:' praying that this
Hon'ble may be pleased to._enIarg«t the petitioners on
abil in Cr.l?i6. 3VI_°.I_ice Station.

This com;i IIg’d§n”‘fcr– vcéniers this day, the Court
made ‘thc _f0IIOW1TI1tVg:fi *
2g\b&DER

V” and perused the objections filed by

” 3At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel

ft):j 1*-She petitioners that pctifion is not pmssed as far as

jseizitiozxer 1105.2 and 3 are concerned and, thcnefore, only as

regards the 35* petitioner, bail is sought. The prosecution

afiegatioas, in short, are that on 86.16.2908, when the

;’%-«~

! I

CrI.P,7056 of 2009

:3:

complainant was going in a car canying

Rs.2,10,000/ -, the vehicie was stoppcé in

mac} near Mandalamari cross S”

attacked the car and took away inc (Sf

and a mobile phone. Fofiowifig “£1.16 L’

registemd a case in Crime ofiences
under Section 394 of iindian

3. Snbinméfibg learned counsel for
the 15* js t¢’ij1y’:§ai’1egation against the 1″
pefifi<;per.is rtzéovered fiom him an ths basis
of the «statemeiith = Jliiappu of Sea and no other

allcgafiens against the petitioner. Secendly, it is

in the flirther statement number of accused

32 and no tria} is conducted till now.

4: (I}i§f; the other hand, submission of the learned

Govcmihent Advocate is that accused 2103.2 ané 3 are

A in 3 inurcler east: in Cxtime No.20}/2008 of

vifviunizabad Police Smfiofi

, J

CI*l.P,'?O56 <31" 2009

5. In the light of the submissior: made

being confined only as neganls the plpéf ppe§iti.{)’fl::~:r: u

only allegation against him ‘being reco\{‘e1y–5 of’eesome’-s:2t;¥;§*,__ hat

the instance of one Bappu,7i’«._sm pf tile

petitioner can be grantee? epndifions.
Hence, {pass the follevailig; Z

The in respect of the 15*
petitisn.er.l” l
‘I’I1e.._15″‘* be released on bail subject to

cengfgliutibn thal: shall furnish a personal bond for a

» 13:11:; / ~ with We sumties, out of whom one shall

to the satisfaction of the Trial Cotut; he

with the prosecution evidence and shall not

give thmat to the witnesses; he shall mark his

“‘.s’t’tei3dance before the concerned police station on every

*’:S”imday between 10.00 am. to 3.00 p.m.; and he shall not

involve himself in the ofiences cf like nature in futlmz.

fly

_ M

Cr1.P,7C5S6 ef 2009

If the petitioner violates any of the: abotefé-. ~

bail wouid be cancelled at the inst,auc.e._(;f thé

Petitior: stands dismissal as ‘against pfizigitioni-zryv

and 3 as not pressed.

Kms*