High Court Karnataka High Court

Suresh S/O Lakshma Sumed vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Suresh S/O Lakshma Sumed vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 August, 2008
Author: V Jagannathan
 A *DistRaish1¥r-
my $11;   mmwc, Adv.)

IN THE HIGH mum OF KARNATAKA . 

CIRCUYI' BENCH, GULBARGA

DATED: THIS THE 3% DAY OFvAUG{}S'If   

BEFORE   = 

THE HONBLE MR.JUST;§QE.V. JAG2A2i;_N A{I"§iAi€" 

CRL. P1:'rmQN 1§e.ké'+:~5Ggg_ 003'  
B :    L   _

S/0     " 
19  J     

2- Nagaivaj  7i '7-I  "
Sfo    
24  . '  

  ..... 

..PE’l’I’i’IOfNERS

mo-mmm…a–_-

?1f?neJSta:e5rKamataka

% “ByV.Mt:§4′.1gal as.

RESPONDENF

%% Sri. Sharaxmbasappa K. Babshetty, HCGP)

This pfltion is filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C mayixg to
release that petitiorm an bafl in S.C.No.43:,/38

(Cr.No.11’7/O7 0f Muagal P.S., Raichuzr u
on the file of the Pr}. S.J., Raichur, which 4′
for the oflence punishable under .0? ” ” V

the IPC.

court made the following:

Heard the and the
learned fef:” “£i’I1:.:. an the
appliceiifixgu ‘ M

2. another accused are the

a case has been regstcred B1
f£_:r the ofience of murder pimishablc with

and the p%m.mon case in

V ‘ afiect that when the d I!4alfi3m1j- – 11:1,
_ V _ ifa~. constabk: went I163!’ the plane where tim
~ aggugea pezrsons Wm having a. quarrel with tlm KSRTC

kk % ” has arim on 5.12.07, at amuxld 4.30 11.111 and enquired

}f

This petition coming

A,,,,A,m,»,,M,M..u._M__ia’

with the jeep inmates as to why they are not

side to the KSRTC bus driver, the accused

were in the said jeep bearing No.K!1’~25+’B–:§.$”1_’?£%);>V k’ & ‘

deceased police constable in tI1e§i* :i.

towards the police station the
deceased, but they drmge place
and later the said police.’ to death by
the accused ‘fiE?_’¢#.’€if carry1ng’
choppers deceased was
in a land. Later
on, this incident and in the

courseof confeesicn statement of A-1

E e was alsc reccwemd fmm mm’ ,

stained cloth was seized.

omm: had daciined ta gr-an t ms; to the

V’ V’ wa§:C§;§ecVlV”a11d the present petitieners having failm. to get

‘ the trial court, haw: thezrefore sought for Imil

u this court. }

4. Having heard the submission of the

counsel fer the petitioners and the learned ”

Pleader for the State and loomng >

placed at this stage and in View J

punishable 11/5 392 of IPC isa1so wit3.1″”s§r,§:1;i’:€>:1’_j’;:3«.4 kA

of the IPC fthereby giving c :;mmon
intention on the part to do away
with the life of the 1 stage, the

above é dzifié this court to
grant offence is a swious
one with the evidence

therefore ‘fiat.

v _ thehijail-petition is rejected.

Siggé
jufige