High Court Karnataka High Court

Sreerama S/O Hanumanthaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 7 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sreerama S/O Hanumanthaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 7 September, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7T" DAY OF SEIYFEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE) HONBLE MRJUSTICE N.ANANoA__.i"_:""' O
CRHVEINAL PETITION No.43_15 or 2o*1'o-- 5» V O' V.

Between: 1 O .
Sreerama

S/o I-ianumanthaiah,

Major,

Residing at No.29, I  ' 

11 Cross, Jaimaruthinagara;_  , "

Nandini Layout,  *

Bangalore.      Petitioner

{By Sri.Tony  

State 
Peenya Po§i(*e Stati.oVn,"~.__ 

Bangalore)', _ _ .. _  Respondent

.._[By Siiii_lPi;~Ka:'Lina.kar, iiiigh Court

 ove rln iti1.ei":--t 1-' l e a Cl"e'i']
Vi , ' ', ****$

 Petition is filed under Section
438__of C_r.P._C' praying to enlarge the petitioner on

.bail 'in the'=evc rit of his arrest in CR No.455/10 of

2 Tfieenyav Police Station, Bangalore City which is
_ .regis.tere"d for the offence punishable under Section
V'  '$6.3 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders

 this day, the Court made the following»



ORDER

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1._ in

Crime No.45?)/2010 registered for

punishable under Section 383 read with

of indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioner is all-effg’e_d to’-._h’avVe=1}tidi1.aVpp’edve

the victim at about 5 p.m. ltwhfen the
victim [watchman] was._”‘jwor–‘_i<i:i1gt'.i~:7i*_t.h.e' office in the
name and style _"'I'he Detr_e.lopers"."'beioVn'Vging to one

R.De\/endra.

3. In the first information
was lodged by who is said to be master

of peti_i’iVor1er”,” r o1«.¢.rré.n¢”és committed by petitioner

:.’j”fromits;._e.s.~20o8″R:’i’1’i”27.06.2010. V in the instant

alleged that the petitioner had

kidn’a_peped.’thV_e}:victin1 (watchman of said Devendra)

27.6:2′(iiO and subsequently let him off.

The contents of the first information. prima

Dffacie do not an attract offence under Section 368

gv WV

Indian Penal Code. The allegations made in the
first information lodged by R.Devendra {the rnaster

of the victim} have been dealt with in

No.3805/2005 while granting anticipato_t’j=-

petitioner. Therefore without__..gTo__ing jinifol.;ftirth.er=-_

details, the direction sought
limited period to enable”fV_t”h_Ve oev1.’iV:tione;r”
regular bail before the téiubject
to following conditionA’s._:V:f” _ j» V fin »

5. In the result, I

§0RfiERfdx.f

1]V7Pet1tio’n7.i’aiaizjcegfited. –

2] If ‘~t_pevtit’io’nei= arrested in Crime
for offence punishable under
%3t3ci:.ion f’3’6’3″‘read with Section 34 of Indian
..{fe.n’a.tl””v__Code by Peenya Police Station,
1 he shall be released on bail on
h.i.s’_f..–eVxeeuting 3 bond for a sum of

‘~.l5{:3.5O.OOO/~, offering a surety for the

likesurn. .;

8%’ i .”\-bi’/’Vv\’3 ‘ax –

3}

Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper
with the first informant or any other

witnesses.

Petitioner, for the purpose of inve_s’t’igé;ti..or1:,.v

shall appear before the

Officer, whenever called—ti”p–o.n to V v A

This order would be ope’1ja’i:iV\./e for. a..pe’r–:”oc,1f

of two months froruridtoday,
time, petitioner shRd’i«1″:i bail
before juriscii__¢~tp_ion«’;a’i’_diéoieipnrtr invvbisiich an
i V of the

h’a.1’_1.V..V’C’:’o’nsider bail

event, the ‘HIe’ar’1a_e¥d;’

jurisdictional
appliC_eti};ri’ vi/.it1§1poi1tbVe’ing..«*influeneed by
ob serv;~i*t.io’ns in _ this.- order.

I safe
Ifidqe