Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Mahesha @ Hallumahesha vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|30 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7835/2017 BETWEEN:
Sri Mahesha @ Hallumahesha S/o Dundanaika Aged about 36 years Nagarle Village Nanjangud Taluk Mysore District-571 129. ... PETITIONER (By Sri Banu Prakash H V, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka Represented by SHO Biligere Police Station Mysore District Represented by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bengaluru-560 001. ...RESPONDENT (By Sri Chetan Desai , HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.88/2016 (S.C.No.417/2016) (C.C.No.32/2016) of Billigere P.S., Mysuru District, for the offence P/U/S 302, 201, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.88/2016.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
4. In the case on hand, initially, the FIR came to be registered against unknown persons. In the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that the persons who are inimical to her husband might have committed his murder. The case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no direct witnesses. In Crl.P.No.4533/2017, this Court by its order dated 27.7.2017, after considering the entire merits of the case, has granted bail to accused No.3. The present petitioner accused No.2 is also placed on the same footing as that of accused No.3. Now the investigation is completed and chargesheet is also filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner- accused No.2 can be admitted to bail.
5. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.88/2016, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE bkp
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Mahesha @ Hallumahesha vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
30 October, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B