IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23" DAY OF OCTOBER,
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. v'EN'UGopA,LA.;s§v*JQA--7:
CRIMINAL PETITIONCCN_():1;--7_'§O4C[' gggg "
BETWEEN:
Sri.Hazaratsab ,
S/0 Dawalsab Doddamanif' _
Aged about 38 years a
R/0 Hebballi C 'C
2 ' PETITIONER
Taluk & Dist: D.har_w'ad
(By SriyuthsiiiflFEB{C'd3n_tfa'e§--dr"*&_ _
G.N.E§|aVrasam:%a:anava-r,'Ad~v'$)
AND:
1. Udayé", .a-> =,~a
S/0 Majleshappa Bhgvi
; Aged abedt 22 years
S-/_;3'~Fa«ki<ir_appa Morabad
&CAvgeVd_'ab'.ou.t 22 years
3.C Ma'bL{b'sab
S/0. Yakubsab Pendary
A1|__a's Ramdurg
'A Aged 21 years
~ C4? Chandra
S/0 Nagappa Sunagar
IN.)
Aged about 21 years
All are resident of Hebbalii
Taluk & Dist: Dharwad
5. The Poiice Sub Inspector
Dharwad Rural Police Station
Represented by
Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Dharwad 1 Rceseojiiiolemrrs r is P
(By Sri:Rajashekar H.Angadi, Adv for P V
Sri.P.H.Gotl<hindi, HCGP for R5)
This Crl.P is filed under"'--Se"ction 4~39('2)'.=ofa»Cr.P.C.
praying to cancel the bail order pa-sseou by thevlearrlied Prl.
Sessions Eudge, Dharwad~,..V_graniti"ng.,paiii.to the respondent
No.1 to 4 in Crl.Misc.Petit’;on’,No_.’1v78ffan’d._179/2009 and
directions may please be issI:,:ed’to’ the..res’pon__dent Nos.1 to
4 to surrender before the “C.oj’urt,– by cav_nc”e!,i’ing the bail of
the above respo.ndent E\les.1 to
ThlS.C’r.l..P isV:coV_rning..V_:o’n.for Orders this day, the Court
made the folléowing’-:
Jonoen
1n.,l:Petl’lt~i.on.er~–is the complainant. He lodged a compiaint
algainstitVhe”_”resp’ondents 1 to 4 on 29.03.2009 in Dharwad
V .Rtsral”Poi’-ice”étation ie, with respondent No.5, alleging
girl aged about 14 years i.e., his daughter was
.’_j_3<i'd.n'apped and raped by the first respondent herein with
T help of respondents 2 to 4. A case was registered by
&
c) P.Muthupandi Vs State reported in 2009 Cri.L.3 1943.
4. Learned High Court Governmentw”§iVeagjcI§§r,,
submitted that, the prosecution has not ”
complaint with regard to the vi’o’Iationg_ of
conditions of bail or with regardtto’-_any
prosecution witnesses and hen”ce}’~ithe pi’osecgL._£t.io’nV4’has’V not ”
sought for cancellation. of..V_baiI,*'” * V
S. In the _ case-~~~or. ‘iudeja (supra),
Hon’bie very cogent and
overwhgeimvigngggiiicirczunfitainciesare’necessary for an order
seekirig -bail. In the case of Ashok
Kumar though reason to grant
baiijwere noti”c_orrect, considering the fact that accused
fpaiiifor considerabie iength of time, and that there
beiogii no””v.iV_oia:;tvi~on of the conditions of the bail, cancellation
was ‘calied for. The same principles have been
i.reit__erat’ed by the Madras High Court in the case of
“”.FV5.’i*Iiu’thupandi (supra). Kr
6. Keeping in view the conditions imposed by the
Sessions Judge on the accused/respondent 1 to
they have complied with and also undertake _
no case is made out for canceilationiofbaii. ~ff_u g
7. If the investigation is v4i”i_ot”–._c.ompiete’,’v iet
investigation be expedited and”‘i~fV:tii.e chai*gesihe.etéV”haVs”oeen
fiied, iet the triai be con’o’iig:tecid’eaii§)j, Hy-.the “i’r’i’a’i Court.
Petition sta_nd_s disposed