High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Mithun vs State By Puttur Town Police on 25 January, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Sri Mithun vs State By Puttur Town Police on 25 January, 2011
Author: V.Jagannathan
I

IN 'f"'I~II5£ HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BAN

Salted: This the 25" day ofdanuary 5    _

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUS'i'ICE?'i2'.;J;¢'»'3_9_.96/20 1"O  - AV 2

SR1 MITHUN,   :   
S/O SHIVARAM, AGED'AI3OUTT=1'33 YE ARS~, _
R/AT NEKKILA, NEAR BANNURLI s#::~HoQI.,.--~
BANNURU V11,LA<3E:, 1?U'T'I'E.If2_TAL'UK,'~  "
DAKSHINA ¥IA}\fN,ADA:j-. %   

    'V  ..    PETITIONER

[By Sn. I:1AI¥k1_S}1'Q;,_::HARIjm<A;,::A:)?;/. FOR
M/s.:jAGA£}.}?;I{,S1-i1V';V;8i_ ,F_IARISI~£ ASSOCIATS.)

AND: 

S'£'AT_E BY4"'E'I.:*£*":°I.j.:2 ':'*0W'N POLICE.
REE? BY S']_'ATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

 V'  . H-1<:;Ha.c.ot5RT OFVKPLRNATAKA BUILDING,

. ' BAN GALORF-,

... RESPONDENT

 Sn' 9' EAWAZ. ADDL. SP9}

Z VZWEIS CRLP FILEE) U,/84,439 CIxP.C PRAYENG TO

 z<:iE~é:Z.;AI2;G £3 "{'HiE:Z Pi§l'I'ZT'ZONE1R ON BAIL IN

N  i::Is:.1\sG.2;2:/2010 03' PU'i"i.'UR TOWN PS.' :::.K. W"?-{ESE ES

REGDW FCFR 'T§"iE3 O¥'F'£§NCE P/if/S 375 R/W' 34. OF "f'I"--I£I;

EPC 3'-RN11 SEC. 3{2}{v} OF SC/SI' {POA} ACT, 1989.



THIS PE'.I'I'E'1ON COMING ON FOR 0Rr3:L:~e:§V'V" 

DAY, "me COURT MADE TE--IE FOL.L0wING_;  

ORDER  

Heard both sides i’e__v’r’e.speet’~ of
the petitioner who is__ said t(J.._t§jave”eLomr’nj1ttedfiffenees

L1/S 376 }’/W 34 :$(‘2){v) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 19%e9ttM ” V%

2. made by the
in the c:0mpIai11t
lodged’ by ‘d;a’te of the offence has been
me11tiorted3 ‘other hand, reading of the

weti’id.._g0«’t0 Show that the aileged. iI1Cid€i1t

‘ is” taken place long back and after the

v1<§JiL:i§n1 eetgaiiile pregnant. and delivered a Child, that

the case was filed against the petite3.0'ner.

3. In VIEW’ ef the above contents of the

§SOi’E1p1ai1’fi; and eubmi-sei0z1 being made that even at.

the time Of admissioil tie the hesgpital. :10 eempiaint

-‘”‘~,
:3
3:’
.,
fig/,

/.5

-“3
‘s

was lodged by the ViC,i’,im alleging rape
petitioner and aiso the of the victi.m _
36 years, taking 211} these fe>.ct.o1”.s;3jVn’1′:.o
the View that the petitioner
imposing conditions.

In the resuit, ielposing
the foilowing C()f1CIiti()}T1.SL;_ 9 2 A»

1. on baii
“”” H 1 personal bond for
__ ‘eviih two sureties for the

‘ v . satisfaction of the triai

shall not hamper the investigation
shall not give threat €10 the
prosectmion witinesses in any manner.
He shall mark; his :«;1ttendaI1(:e before the
jurisdietionezl pelice on every Saturday
between 10.00 21.11″: and 5.00 pm.

5″:

‘= ,3,
,5?”

4

4. shali appear’ bef’01’e the tzria} céo11′.fr_t “»(>n

ail dates 0i’h(2ar1ng Vvithoui: faiigw I V

‘A

DVTI