IN mm maxi mum or KARxA.'rA;z$ 44 :1
cmcurr wnca AT AM ff "
vamp mm mm mm nAi:..pr:;As;¥atra'1n 2o6§[i%\%
swag; V _ 2
'mm Horrnm am.
carmmn:ig.*:1ni$n;:§3§;.?ze{1*o/200$ H
ssrwmmxw: T % M'
1.
sHR1.PAB:A£e;E;sHWAR PARAMESHI
s/0 Nr’L.«PPA;jV_K;avzaL1xAY1 .
AGE: 30 Y3″3k”;RS;”‘-QC’C:’:’AGR!CUL’i”URE
R/Q%.KABBEmF.UR * ‘– ~
‘I’A,’L. DHARWAE’; DIST, ‘ DHARWAD
2. SANGANAGODEQA we DANAGOUDA MUDIGOUDAR
AGE::53 YEARS,”OCCiAGRICULTURE
R/O KABBENNIJR,-._’rAL. DHARWAD
MST, DHARWAD
‘V ” ….. Prrxnoumm
‘St; A R ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES)
…__..-……u.um– _
~ H .1′ THESTATE OF KARNATAKA
* V, ” = 3/8 as STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
_ V. __s’,P F’ 0:99:32 CIRCUIT BENCH
DHARWAI)
REBPGIIDMWTB
A :f(I:3Y SRI. P. H. GOTKHINDI, HCGP)
W;
can? FILED 1513.439 CR.P.C BY THE: AD’V€5CATE
ma THE PETITIONER PRAYING mm ‘I’H_IfS”‘«H()..N’fi_LE«
comm’ MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE –APPL£§3?;’Fi(§1§
AND RELEASE THE PE’m*1oN1:Rs on ;B}’:i’E4′::’1VN”‘~.IV{i*I’1″1,I_R”VV
P.S.CR§ME No.26′?/08 FOR THE:'(3FFE-NACES_;PU?!iSHP;BLE
UNDER SECTION 341, 302, 3o7,=.._5o4R/w..34″i.P.”(:;..__Afi,:>–
SEC. 24 AND 25 OF INDIAN’ ARMSACT 0N_’_mE E?IL=E”‘€)F-.
JMFC BAILHONGAL.
THIS CRLP COMING etétiaziés Tm. mv,
THE COURT MABE THE..FOLLGWI_N{};”
The” ficftiiién are ranked as accuseti
No.3 2008 registered for ofihnccs
punishabié-..§fi31dc#” 397, 302, 504, 341 R/W Section
, A_ and and 25 ofthe Arms A-act.
seek grant of bail while they are in
3u¢:.g§ia1
V’ ‘A s ‘_ The State has 3eriously opmscd grant of bail.
4. The substance of accusation cm the basis of which
‘4 the petitioners are arwxgtneti for the change punishable
under Section 302 of IPC finds its genesis in the ccmpiaint
fi»«%
submitted by one Smt. Sam-jini, W/o.
S.H.O of the jurisxiictional police szasam é1:}a:_; fig: .
husband Dyamay/ya Pujcri of
ieft house in the company of L’
and Jagadish Rudmyya p§a1i§:hayat
summoned to resolve .. She
believed that tlzzgy panchayat and
It-:t11rz1. But fitter in ‘(lac evening
of to the venue of the
panck§Ei$ffi,” were followed by
four .. hyya, Dada Hayat, Paxamcshi
and SangV§nir.goud a;v._ all armed with sharp objects
‘~ _ …. ..fncy attacked Dyamayya and when
‘ he asked them the reason for such. assault,
2 abused them in vulgar Ianguage and
théfi petitioner herein is said to have felled them the
” V. and the other three accused assaulted Dyamayya
Jagadish with sharp objmts iike chopper (Talaéwarj,
u “Basavaraj was afraid and he took shelter in the sugar
plantation. He was watching from there the acts of thex
fig.
four persons resulting in causing injuries to
and Dyamayya. A.’1-:. they heft the place u
found Byamayya dead at spot ; !*#’}
the Government hospital.
statement was mconied. report: of
Smt. Sarojani, SHO’ casic;v aigd during
invcsfigatzion recorded. v%A;:§gaidish and also
Basavaraj. material,
which thci’ the statement of
others; “”” =
5. lwtiiéfi for the petitioner would
co’1:1t§:’m1 -t1;é”é1llé?g;ations, if any relating to homicidal
. ” :§;’:a§gadisv};mé;1nd Byamayya am attributed only to
2 who are not parks’ 5 in tins’ petition.
petitioners herein are ranked as accused
No.3 4 and no overt acts have been amibutcui to them.
to the statement of Jagadish, who under treatment
b iamt:s only accused No.1 and not rcfcrmd to overt acts
of the petitioners. As regards statement of Basavaraj is
concerned, it is totally belied by report ‘of the expert
§,;>V
who found difliculty in coming to a (infinite opinion. abcuj: the
use of gun and also pfitol submitted to balizistic
He submits that the material available is 11ot~’..$iI'<')1::§ V'
them for chargt under Section 302: air-3()'?' -§'3f
therefore entitled to benefit of 1 ' A
6. State has opposed lélzgvrg heard
learned Govt. pkeader
7. The co$.1’*t.-:;1tior;”ij1~g?,é§I flit: petitioners so
far give an ixnpmssiou that
Jagadiéh ‘haxfingf them and having named only
the La? me is weak. But statsmeat given
by: ufiihe——andoubtodly was in the company of
L’ ~::i¥:§t:%.11_1$v..’:x’a%zi;th:
with that of the test cartridges 1%
R-2 which Ware test fired riglzet’ (Sizf
DBBL gun in Article No.5m ‘i’ii1?_in€:r_V$te1Vfl(:– were
similar. The class on the
cartnflgtz case marked No.10(é)
that of the R»: and 5(1) R-2
which Wc1t*é'”‘c¢%,?:;ii’ ‘barrel of the DBBL
gun microscope, was
also s1m’ V’_1Iarf ” V V.
céirtxfidge test fired the cartridge
‘~ the of accurrcnce bear the same
¢i;.a rat. Pin marked, undoubtedly the op1’mo:u’ of
the-..¢_fixp¢1’t the same gun is used. Themfcrc, it cannot
V’-Jae saidfiixat the ballcstic rep-art absoivcs the petitzioncm of
éiikgafiens made by the pmsecutian.
16. These ohsczvabions are Mcamc necessary’ in
view of the gonad urged by the learned Counsel. But such
€((,{é/
8
observations shall not be taken as expression of opiV:Vtioi1~.Von
the mcrits of the case. I am thczeforc satisfied, _
Witnesses and statement given by Basavaraj –« ..
accused No.1 and 2, but also tho
relating to causation of homimigial ,
(since deceased) and _ 1137:”. who is
undcrtakm g t1’eatn3c1£:1;§”‘~o_ being so
ovexwilclxnm g and the: V33″ V_-.;,;;,%,¢ of crime is
barbaric, no mag mi for’:gan ‘ ‘ t.._Ofbafl.
rcjoctcd.
Sd/-
JUDGE