Sri Pavan @ Pavankumar vs The State By on 18 August, 2010

_ 1 ..
IN Tm I-IIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGA:,.oRE
mma THIS Tm 181% my OF AUGUST Q_ G'i_:(-}'."V.~'. V

BEFO%

TEE z~1<:m*BL£ 1\J2¥2.JUSI1£1E__H.AfI§AB"ffigg'V"'~:  "  k

§ 

Sri mwn@W 
Si nfiavw .   A_
A,"a2-¢ywm '   if}
Qcc:Cno1ie,, R/a.1'Iu.116]€.I_  1
'l'r'mhu1TaI&_:"=)_ad  " 1  

(By   Am.)
 by     

' V.  - K.'1'.J.  pczfiee. afiatien

...RE«SP'C.3BIDENT

  Suhramazzya mm, HCLGP)

 V  (3r}..P. is filed undaar Section 439 Cr.P.C

" . =pfra},ring tn enlarge the petitionsczr rm bail in Cr.Ho.'?5/10

'   of K.T.Jam  R8,, Daxwaxmmr-3, which is

   Ear the ofiexme punishable untier Sectinn 392
 afIFCk

11$ petifim czxunzirg on fior erdm tlfim day, the
Cnurt mzia the following:

(:1-2% Psmgon  -1"% 91j1:.l4"'a."+..'§3-4'-9;"  



ORDER

Wm tba mattuesr E taken up far

Caramel fiat petitiezam subnzité’ ‘

application was filed befom 111$ ._

charge sheet was nut filed. V ‘V V

lam mad. ‘I’11¢z<:'eforegi1g-;_ prajké £7,,1;i1:§on

2. His.

3. Petitzitzxfi mm’ liberty
ts: fika a fruit: trial Judge.

ad!
113963