1
IN "rm HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. AT BA}-«3G,ALORE
DATED ms BE 23"' DAY OF mm, 2002
BEFORE
"mm HQFBLE MR msncg HN. NAGAIVIOHAN 13;-as?' V " H
CRMINAL PETXTIUN Ne. 4545i;.%fl6
BETWEEN I
u------..-mun-uwu-u-_
5121 ARAVALAPIL E HANEEF
5,'-Io IISRAHIM
AGED 29 YEARS
JEEP DRIVER
Rae KUNJILA VILLAGE V ;
KAKKAEBE V " 1 .,
K£)DAGUDISTRICT.;'"~._j'--
(133: Sri. vENI<A'13§3P1 '
AND 2
mac...-
STATE oP.%IKAPNATA;t:,A. V
CBYNAPOKLU'-PPOLICE STA'i'T(3N
BY ,S"{A_TE. ,IC PROSECUTOR
EKGH - A' ..
BANGrAL(_3fRE'.' « RESPONDENT
V {By Sri. Aiv. P_.3M.§i<R1sHNA, HCGP)
u–5-
” A =_’Im:§ CRLP IS FILED 1:23.432 CR..P.C wrrs A PRAYER TO
ii _Q'{;IASI:I “HE PROCEEDINGS IN SPLIT UP CASE
P 3.c:.:s.:o.:4;o5 ON ma FILE OF THE s.J., KODAGU, 3»-IADH{ERI,
THE ENTIRE PRWEEDINGS PURSUANT HERETO AND
DIRECT ‘I”HE LEAKED SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI,
TO RELEASE THE Pxccusm FROM Pm JUDICIAL CUSTODY
FC)RTHWI’1″I~i..
TRIS CRIIVHNAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING; V.
Q.E.12.E_E
The respondent – poiice filed charge sheet in SE. it
against five accused inciuding the petiti0ner;’;1ieMreiIr for the ‘
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 443, 32;-tv,.’3f}”ZV_tet”:d ASectioi;’:_”.A”~ ”
149 PC. Since the petitioner was abscoi1dizifi;..tthe S”es>3i.dns..
splitting the case greeeeded against the«V.e.feur eiccuscdyjand
acquitted them vide judgment dated”€t5i'{t3..§20{)§~;’:ii ‘ ‘ ”
2. Now the eetitimer, arrested
him and he wasvfgi petitioner is enlarged
on baii. After Enticing.’ i’5§seti.tif(3::e>r’;~tiie….ycspcndcnt – police have flied a
charge sheet agztiizctthe No. 3422005 on the file of
Sessions Judgje’v at In the present case against the
fe$p(}t1d-ctlt – A are relying on the same set of
‘fa.Vc’te.,, documentary evidence which they had relied
in thfiifiajriier.-cace’..~ S.C. No. 36f2(}02. The Sessions Judge on
-. .i.3;);,~r’eci.ation of ideritical circumstances, facts and evidence acquitted other
‘.i15s.:;_~ éccuseduiit s.c. No. 3552002 Vide judgment dated 05.03.2905. New
H V–ti”:e.._§etitie:ier is seeking for extension of the benefit of the judgment in
4’ ;No, 3652002, In identical circumstances the Supreme Court in the
Cece of Dcegak Razaa Vs. State of West Bengal, 206? {3} Crimes 95 (SC)
held that in. case of acquittal of similarly placed co-accused on the very
d\\/”\/\-
same set of facts and on similar circumstances; the benefit can be extended
to another cc—aecused after surrender.
3. It is not in etispute that the petitioner W accused was arrested and
he is eniarged on bait. In the circumstances and in View of the
the Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled to me benefit aecruegdto :_. A4
other accused in SC. No. 3652002.
4. For the reasons stated above, the following; « .
GRDER
1. Petition is hereby allowed. V ti’ ”
II. The proceedings against thexpetiti’onei-*~in S.C.A’I41~;”;E20£)5
°pqe¢g@etemjfia§e$eebnsJmom,Ko¢@m,tmeeaa
alfivlllfiftibff ” i
m, chaogee. against the petitioner are hereby
‘A accordingly.
Sdfl-
Jfidge
1’i”~’,””Tfi;;§és:3iay52(ao8.