Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Vittal Baban Nakade vs State Of Karnataka on 29 January, 2010
Author: Arali Nagaraj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CRICUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 29"' DAY OF JANUARY, 2o«1of  

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A"R'AL_i'r¢AG_ARA3A'-- 
CRIMINAL PETITION No'f?..1A21_/2o1ov_''_i_f * O' 1'

BETWEEN: O V'
Vittai Baban Nakade

S/o Baban Nakade

Age: 25 years   «

R/o Near Rohiya Coilege-~-- _  '

Near Petroi Pur_.nT.'=Arg_   _,   ~. _  .

Sai Biswa Hogsing;l:'3o.c§ety L;t_.cE., _  " 

L.M.Road, |3fa'dE3_r--,., Niurijba-i_gj--«.__V  _ " _   '

Maharastra State ;j_ '   ..    PETITIONER
(By SriV:'"Ravi  Cotfisel "for Sri.J.Basa\/araj, Adv)
AND: V 'O O 'O O

States of K3 mata i<-as

"'-.Repre'se--r'ited by its  """ 
V_ .High_ Court Public Prosecutor
 ,___i-iigh' 'Com: of' ifiarnata ka
C.irc--u_it Ben*c.h,'~if)i'Tarwad  RESPONDENT

(Esysri:A--i§.H-fiotkhinde, HCGP)

Tr.-'ié; Crl.P is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying

A "t°toVOa'i~i_ow this petition and eniarge the petitioner on baii in
'icrtme No.51/2007 of Nippani PS (CC No.710/2007) of

learned Civii Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Nippani pending trial

 .».of the case and grant such other orders deemed fit in the

circumstances of the case.

c...._("*"'~»-



This CrI.P is coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the foiiowing:  

ORDER

Accused No.7 in cc No.710/2007 (ccgggixiociz/2~oios)

on the file of the learned JMFC, l’i0ippaAn’i«ivfe_r

under Section 395 of IPC and; _Sectioni25 of §n1cliga’ii”

Act has filed the present peti’t’ii’o:n’under._§ect’i:on°;fi§9 of
Cr.P.C. His earlier bail vpTet.iction’iti’i:edi’heio’re thevleafneo Prl.
Sessions Judge, Belgaui’nLha’s__l>ee’nV’V This petition
is opposed by a|’9Um€0tS Of
Sri.Ravi B for the petitioner
and Court Government
Pleader vfzoruthew

L In’iti_aiI~,;,’.’~Cr’;’!\lo’ZS1/2007 of Nippani PS came to

reg”istere”ot,gfor0Vth’e””orience under Section 395 of IPC

“‘a..g’é.i_nstr Sandeep and four other unknown

accused basis of the complaint dated 09.04.2007

filed by” one Manoj Patil, the owner of the jewelry shop at

alleging that at about 2.45 pm. on 09.04.2007

0.0%”–tiwhiile he was in his jewelry shop, 5 persons holding

F/*v”*””‘-.»–*'”*-=-…..~«
fi_%._.

country pistoi entered into his shop, closed down__._the

shuttegthreatened him showing the pistol and too!§”ayv–aly*.,A

from his shop the gold ornaments totaily’ 9J=l*€:¥l’*é’;i:fi’lg”‘,ygaT?£3f5Ut;’~._._g

/N\M_f_/–._,

322 grams worth Rs.3,14,000/– and_one_4of
namely accused Nio.1 Sandeep could

the neighbors of comp|ainant’xs/hl.o’;3…,V_

3. It is pertinent~~.r_to écvomplainant
couid not give the names_o_f’-aniflofijth.a.:VVf’o.”g’rV__other persons
said to have committed a’|’o:nlgw~itl1T.accused No.1 on
the said data’ in his further
statement it was not only 5
persons on the said date and time
in the 55,id i3.:,iVt.’-itA’i_yas’.llV7 accused persons and he has

.3V.giV¢Fl>:..:;thg-.’v: ravaymeslllwiofiall the 7 persons including the

‘petltloher:aVccLlseci~.. N o. 7.

V3». careful reading of his further statementkno

‘oi-r_ea.sons are assigned by the complainant as to how he was
“¢;;.”<S_.-3v~"lV€.- 14-'3zvxa;._,§ {Le -/g"i.:z»vw–e.j ,~wf""'"""'

_' the other 6 accused and why he did not give their
3» <.i'u.?'-»'\_

Vi ':'_""nas*rles in his complaint flied "immediately after the

er"–{\"""'"'r

occurrence of the said incident. He has further stated in

his statement dated £0.G-4.2007 that though he has_sta_'te'd._'

5/uo<io;,Ǥairw;r

in his complaint that gold ornaments v¢a¢% '

"M 5': ~'?"*" «eiéwifil +9"-""."

were takenluaviray §FeN@_ the said je’vveiry” in

taken forcibly by the said dacoits from

said date and time.

S. Admittediy, the iipetitioneriajccused
No.7 has been residing material on
record to was known to
the complairs’an’t:.”so”‘as h”i-.m»–to give his name in
his as one of the 6
other pevrsons to have committed dacoity
on thaAt.dateVi’* A it

H_aving’V”‘—-regard to all these facts and

the case, I feel that the present petitioner

deserves _t’hve’i__g::rant of bail. The apprehension of the

Vi”–«.__’vprosecution that since the petitioner is from Mumabi, he

‘~maiyVn’i_isuse liberty, if he is granted baii may be met with

.___”°byV’imposing suitabie conditions. Hence, the following:

,–f”7′

cf) he shall produce, to the satisfaction of the learned

JMFC, the Identity Card issued by the

Commission of India or any such other;ciocL3’n9aj’e—-nt’v–.–_T’ ~

showing his permanent residentiéal ”

A copy of this order shall be4′;~:e:nt. forthwith todtherii

learned JMFC, Nippaoi and aiso”te.:VV:the PSI”ciVf’Nirjpa.’iva:i for
information and compiiéhce. H K ‘V A H
Sd/-r


Leave a Reply

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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.102 seconds.