Karnataka High Court
Chikkabhoomappa vs State By Sidlaghatta Rural Police on 5 January, 2011
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
DATED THIS THE THE HONEBLE W VJAGAL CRIMINAL PETITION NO S704 oP i , #4 ge eer, . Pee TULA 2 Bw, about 56 years, . ulturist, . 2. Ohare Tobe, 2 This CrLP. ie filed umer Section 438 of the v.P.C. preying to enlarge the getitionere on bail in the avant of thew arrest in Cr.No271/10 of Sidlaghatta fag 4 As w 2 Boeing follex ea) Be he iw 34 Ces, ¢ y ' a = Fes rs re i gag ie cin 4 ter went a See . bod i Sal P ec ia i) 7s ms < a . shy : haat : & . wo 4 iat sj = & sind geod at oe soy Fey, (gi Me ce shan . Seat : re "~ ded ea aa ae * : a Be a 'i on 5 . ee " 'et ey, = 5 eo Bo 5 a ne # be * ae oy S oa : = S a g 2°58 ¢ & 8 8 8 8 2 & «- :: ae a nat "se a ie sh ca ae . | oe or "3 Broo ~ soe Q bg & eB 5 Be ee o & & G§ &§ & a ro A é " by al in nf Hi 5 be mrs Pt " * il 4 ras . re - ae tes = f vl . sod cc fl o <a : ce eg pat re - i FS Hi ue cH es _ os - pe *
¥ kehmannta stating th al é a i Ire, @ cor a8 ere are necking. pee 3 é Pe a, a" F: eo a din "et eee ; A rei aes a s Pea, ry . 5 4 8 2 , Bog Be BOR 2 e 2B tn! U8 US bp oe rn cee an Ss 5 = og e S = ae ns ie & ee nae oe is © sn ait ; ie s ce bel sil came wig ' ¥ oh n Aone ¥ i wher °F 4 a se ae a et & ie ase "
EE & 4 a 8 2 Saas & ort na ' te pst " wa 4 ae SEE SS 5, 2 fe a a "4 me : | of . a 6 © 4 i = she ie Pew ris . a os yy aaa ps on re - + ey a fe - a eS a ae ™ » th, Sob 4 4 foo Ge Hoe af Boa en er fal = Cd wl ce RS eo a @ Ae Pa ea ZTE t @ of 2 be Haack = = & the ¢ tee complainant are mt. ard , 8 z pap lair:
i & Py ees saree of a w Be ug Pars 8 4 : ee et % ty Ph agen eye ee a Secs Of Mer private part and thereefier, the accused ; . rt, / g . set ated a on ee
3. Learned Course! for the peltoners submits thet, so fer as the offence punishable under. Sevtion | Al Mei) of the SC/ST Act & cOnCeITIC', ever as per the Psa a 5, By . a) j FB ob a Z complainant's version, allegation ia oniy directed against the 2=¢ petitioney Chendrepoa arel not against the 1® petitioner anc pert from that, the date of % Incicert hue beer given ciferentiy by the witnesses amd one pute it aa Bintes the viate as -
aseaiut with sickle or aticic. JTHer ftroeee Be pty at atta "Big, phe Lied ge ee ee ate de a Ey ety, Gigee, gona tances, the ROWUOTICre be graves AIC ipalory $a ry Lae » = ccutt guste * 4 . ; gy dagen an hg py Begs Shon ROP ia that in wew of the bar ootiemecl under the SC/ST Act, grant of anticip tory réapect or the offence punishable of the SC/ST Act and as per the dmcrepancy in the date of the inmeident ie concerned, it hae been mentioned by the complairurrt ae O5.11.10. a S. Having thue heard bot sides and, taking mote af the complaint allegatio: re, Wisever. as. the:
petitioner is concerned, im wie of the comiplaimiert, tating thet this petilor H ifted wr Aree ark Also auaeultei oi ler private part + vi few cy bm ey ed? bbe ce Be ow 4 ieee En 4s justification in the: submission of the learned HGP for 3, B e State e that tae b bar v inde the: SC/ST Act comes inte erhelns tary hed OR Ee be SLI SY co a ae applic Hivation for gre vt of 8 sug apn cist ° eg te suns "pais es toner would assmt tne seate with the poles, | ar of the wiew thet he can be granted anticipatory bal a a -
« Les oe pum aael diene TM posiie, CONaMIOrEs. an a | * ot son 2 ons a
7. In the result, petition is partly allowed amd the Sah gn embeddnbum os uot ban ppanen yb te ek 5 ayy bam £. etd ; . ebay i petitioner is granted anticigatory Dail, subicct to tm epimiing, sage Poa ERS aes Oe ioe ge ier.
fese EE 3 & EEMaAS Es & Petia c atten S. LER ary me ees Sue apres.
warke ba & tiness x Pees. Ee avin EH og Spee & eS beds pont sey "aye a ung & ECTS G &