Loading...

Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2011
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF 1éARNA':miA'A:r  

DATE!) THIS THE f§1'H__ DA?" @195 JUNE: 20 11 
among ._ a   

THE Hem1w§ w
BETWEEN:   ;   
1.

SRINIVAS, ;

S/O DAYAL BABLL,._’–.. =
AGED ABOUT :/:5 .

T1LEs?.WQi?’ 1′
R/Ar OPP”J;’P.SGHQ’©L,”*4 ‘
NIR’»fANI LAYc;Ui1:-~.’_% Q_ ”

/mMKUR;”1::;:. V

2. VENKA’FE$E?L _ _
HS/*0 MA_NJfLINATH,_ *-

AGED ABOUT. 2:3-.y’1:;;Rs,
TILES wORKLiR’,
. .} R/AT QPP~J’.P.SCHOOL,
NERVANE fem’,

ETUMKUR. g…PETITIONEZRS

‘ {mt :,1;1é§<;:coN, ADVOCATES)

A"«N,mQ.9' '

STA'"1'E,1__A 1:)? KARNATMLA,

AA BETUMKUR NEW' EXTENSION
'P_QLICE STATIQN,
* ZTUMKUR. …RE;E¥P€}NDE§NT

{BY SRE.G.Ei:'IeSRiNFi?A$A REBBY, E'¥CC%P}

TEES CIRE*»'EEE"sEA§,!» ?ET§'iTEQ§ ES FILEEZED UNDER SECTEQN
43% CR;?(,Cj PRA':"}§E\'{f,} T3 EEELARGE '?'?i§L E"ETE'?iC%i'*'£'E',RS {§:\E
§§A§L EEK? {ZR.?'~§€}.?'?;'§§§§ GE' ?'4§E.%%' §LX'E'"EiZE'€Ssi{}?*§ PSIELECEC

5;”

2

STATION, TUMKUR DISTRICT wH:.eH_1S RiEir;’r’e*1:fr«:ee,:::. Fee»

me orrmees PUNISHABLE e:«§zDER’$eer:’eN’e~ _§’:v§}9″Qf§sE\1’i3
area GFIPC. ‘

THIS CRIMINAL pE:Tr:*’1R.§e1_§i<s

THIS DAY, THE: eeum i\!£AD":Z,TE=IE r0L.Low:NG::,
0 I{'«Q;_Ef,_13 * f:

T he petitionere::¢_frere:.fi ..’§;ei7’ebeerrarraigned as
Accused Noe?) 81 of New
Extention ‘”rrrr§:Rr:rr_,:f’registered for the
effences jj’1;~;r’::r«1″ée;eéeyions 399 & 400 of IPC
are ‘vi:;:§V\’,:r3:Vjj::fi.:e.deérergaratiorls for committing
ether accused persons at about

3. 2′?.’O4′;v2{3″‘i 1 near Kuvempu Nagar bridge,
:2} According to the Case of the prosecution, on

» :’e–redibieA ~iriferrnati0n reeeiveé in this regard, the Police

H ‘- ef the said Police Staiien, along with his

sfiezff to the abeve said place: there he saw about

” AA 313%; persons armed with weapons making attempts fie

“(he geople meving en the road: immediateiy, they

were eurrormdeci and apereherrdeég er: aserifieaiienr they

were ilirarrré peeeeeeirrg eerrze arms and {heee §:3;§”£’fES were

eeigied arzii ‘r/he}; vseere arresteéi: er: ihe ezzeie ef ‘r/he eue::–

€:3;§a;§~;,;s
\

3

mute repert of the Police Subinspeetor

No. 77/2011 came to be regis_?:e»re_d a:*1.<V:i

was taken-up. Investigatien is

pending? The prayer ma<'le_ "Q.y these –'f3efere.

the learned Sessione.Judge..fe§:*v.g:'*apt ef'b':1_:iAI Veiéxme to be
rejected. Therefore, ifiawfe presented this
petitien befere' esrder to enlarge
them on I V " u

' tleevvvieerned counsel appearing
for {hex «. also the iearned HCGP
appearfiig~V VR'espondent-State. Perused the

rveeergde made avai-Eable.

1 :i’}:’eugh at this stage the Contents of the

:I”14€:hE§,_’2i€1′-‘m”” said to have been drawn at the scene of

eeeurfenee based on which the ease appears to have

V’ V.¥;>e4en registered prima facie indicates that these twe

petitienere were seen aieng wiih ether eeeyzeed pereens

23}: the eeene ef eeeusrezzee and Aeeaeed Ne::2,5 was feued

p:>eeeee§:”:g er: §r«.:>:2 long” meeeureieg E3/5:.;.: feet, Tézere is :15

V” . gjers di’ti’en”s~.,

23:

material on record at this etaggeeto ‘i::iiieafe–VI.t’héi€, .’_1:heseV’

petitioners are involved in any’=eti?’§e:”Tee£se”‘.:;e;j t}%1 ‘erxe1»?:s

any material to Show that tiiese pe’1i1f:_ienefe éu:’e”‘hVabituaiV V

offenders indulging 31;; siniisla:::eet:”::::iee’, ” Ex;e:1.i§aee0rding’
{:0 the proseeutien, not possessing
any arms at tiI;jfé;’*- _ 1:0 the facts and
cireumst§zr:;:e_etP;e ‘ f;b¥eHv’materia1s available
on reveQ1fc’i;’~.e;t iino grounde to deny the
re1ie:f_ of._ The apprehension of
the p1′ e;ee’c:,1ti'(:’rn petitioners are hkeiy to flee

away frore juefiee eeuld be allayed by impesing etriet

* Ljthe result, the petition is allowed The

” ordered ta be enlarged on baii in Crime

of New Eixtentien Police Station, Tumkur,

V’ x eeieh of them executing persena} bond for 3 Sum of

‘. 5Re’;:[email protected]/- {Rupees Fifty Theusazzd eniyj with Ewe:

“eézreiiee fer the EEKSWSQEIE to the segiéefaetieri ef {he

Eeameé §v§ag§isi:ra£’,e 31:6 2:330 ezieageei ire fizrihee

z:Tii’;}fi%:§i§i{}E1S fiiaiz , ~

iii)

iv)

Ԥ

the petitionere shalt not tamper er terre:f°is§e” :”

the pmeeeution witnesses in any n_1a:_1eei*;._f é

the petitieners shaii ztppeett E:gef::§:”e_: j_ A
Investigating Officer as anti vishieh ee.required”=. ”
by him and shall eesieperate if’: invest/igati0n’3

of the ease, ” _

the petitioner shail ap_t3e..2i:’–.hef0i*e’– Ctrurt
on all the datesef hearifigf §rJitii._Qut fail’ ”

the petitioners ‘sh’.2:1;i1 ‘ieave the
jurisdiction ovf~~the= (iqttrt Sessions at
Turnktitp –

they i*i1e§r}:VV_their attendance
with,’ th.e;”_Investigzitirig” Officer on every 10″

.»a:1d.._i»35ih”{:;f. eeeh c:ai’ert:i’éu” month between
1O.OO’e:1fn__etnC1’5109 p._m., tilt the conclusion
“Of ‘the’ tri’~a1)«.. ”

§§3’EQ§Z

Vritjtiié. .

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information