Sri Sagai Raj vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2008

m 1 _

my $33 315$ cmukm 0? KARNAEAKA AT Bafiségghfiqjg

DAEEB @315 ram 22m'nAx GE SEPTEMBE§u2Qfi8_  

PREsE§T§
T32 HON'BLE M.JUSTE§E é?g BA§xu§%$$$ : 
AR§ fi  , _ V W
THE HQN'BLE MR§§JQs§I§fi B'§*xgaAfi§§HnA
wkzw,v3T1w:0fifnfiyiéiiééésfsc)

_.._.........:..n«----..

SR: SAGAE RAJ? *f', ,

AQEB AE0UT.50VYEARSg"

R/fii Ba 2, 23TH amass,
-" _0Lfi EésaLUR LEE ET,

Vsagsazéaaeas.

FE?iTIORER

£3? SR: fiéxisfl A CHAR?AKA§.ADV.,§

urn wan tum mun

'*. 'V}1T STATE or KARRATAKA

B? COMKESSIGEER GF ?OLICE,
INE&NTRY RQAS,
BANGQLGRE CITY, EAEGALGRE.



*2-

2 ADDL. commszrouza or POLICE   ~ 
CENTRAL cxmm BRANCH {mxzmwfimaa ._
N.-1-.pE'.r, BANGALORE.  _   

I ...; 

THIS WPHC3 IS FILED .ARTI€flg.ES .226

227 or term CONSTITETI'-1263 or" I1~lI)IA  :«*R§;3a*I§xc; TU
ISSUE A WRIT 0?  'c:oR:pUs. aD1mc*:rING THE
Rzponnmrrs T0 pR,::2ELI1.~m~:Amz
HEARING %_'I'HI§f;j3V nmyi  .3 MADE '£1-IE
FoLLd??l§:m.:A:  "  "   »

 ORDER

– ” m’é£tt.er is taken up for

c;ei:§s?1s:;i_,jA¢i-:=2V;.*ati£:>n., _____ .. the learned counsal for the

‘ states that the detenue has been

“fi.i:1i°a.ést§#.i the jurisdictional police and has

a.}.”sz:> been prociucsed before the learned

1i?£ag:i.strate and as such, the petitioner does

kgmz: press the writ petition.

2.

In view cf the §s$mé, £fié?1wEit

yetition is d¢smissed7as_nmtxp£a3sé&g]W_H§

M_Safi.

fudge

Sd/–

Judge