Ganesh @ Prashantha vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ganesh @ Prashantha vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2010

Bench: Jawad Rahim

1 CI"i,P.1129/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KAQNATAKA AT BANGALORVE'

DATEO THIS THE 3:" DAY OF IVIARCR 20Iom 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE EVIRJUSTJCE IAWAC ﬂF{IAHl;I'\_u/Iii V:  

CR§!\/IINAL PET£T%ON No.11§9_f)--En201O'V_-~.A.A"- = " 

BETWEEN-

1.

GANESH@ PF?A8HAi\.IzT'HA'E._ S/O NACARRA, R/O THIM{\/§/IXPLIRA Vl,L;i_"AC::"E,, I SORABA TA.L'LJK}'_'SHi;MQG.A D4!.S'T'i3'--!.C.TA.:7 A

2. YALLAPPZVA,@_"S:HIV/'I.J«!:,'V"E"~':.'E_' Q RIO THIfI'V!--M)'%-PUF{:,a'k-V'i'LL;AGE,"""'~-- * sOR;ABA TA'LI,IK_, €wHi'I'./_§C)(3_A OISTRICT.

g A ' I ..RETITIOI\IERs (By Sri.RB.DEESHPA[\ID_EA,V.éIdvOCate) ..... .. V THE SVTTATAE-Q%":v'F<,§IRNATAKA BY AN/3;'\/_Iﬁ\-TT.J PvO'i_,;J_CE:"STATlON. ..RESPOI\iDENT Sri;"P.M;._NA"J:'}3IZ, ADDLSPP) '. CRIMINAL EETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 43:3 "Cr.P;C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THEPETJTIONERS

-PBAYENG THAT THIS HONELE COURT MAY BE PLEASED 2 CI"|.P.1129/2010 TO ENLARGE THE PEUTJONERS ON BA§L. S.C.NO.17/2010 on THE FILE OF a.o_ FTC -- Hi, Si-%tMO:§3--«A"',o' (Cr.I\%o.5t/2009 OF ANAVATTI P.S., SHIMOGA Dt.S?8§.Q_T§' WHECH zs eEeisTEeEe Foe THE OFFENCE PUN'fSHA:BvL'E ~ oixroee sEoT:oN 420 AND 395 or: Indian Penai'C.OV_5C_i'e..VV 0 0 This criminat petition coming on for orde-'Ers this' Court made the foHowing:--

oRoEe"'ss Petitioners are charge for ottences punishabietinder srébtiiorjs tndian Penat Code. which is {tit/2009. They are ingucticiaicLIs'tody:A:':;VVE.' E" it it A 2

2. TheEproser:Litionoasie that when one Venkappa Gaegogi Betgatim» todgxedreport on 08.04.2009 alteging that 1'22 o:ay.s:'VE'préo°rKtoﬂthavt date when he visited Durga Bar situated rtear' two persons be-friended him and oiSclosed'--the~i'rtnarnes as Ganesh and Ramesh. They informed thueiryyvisit to Beigaum for tying some electric tines but 3 CI--|lPA1129f2U10 were residents of Sagar. The acqeaintance developed between them and they were in contact with him te§eph.o~ni.'oa§_l'y;'.j'

3. On 05.04.2009 that they inttomzed hihﬁ"4"rri€'e';i""'i:ad found gold and silver ingots in a Fort they were in need of money, they'»w,ah.tVed to"dispose;Aot~.;Vit"'lor"ja good rate. The complainarwtyazccepte-d'the of-tee.r alnédwentiito the place indicated by them were not shown to him by theysieoondgl'oet'itior'ier"elrr:d_Vgtiheretore he left the spot. Again, on :ano't'h.e_rV":betsor.' by name Ramesh called the Voompllaiinanlt*;:.;thro'd.g'hv'h'is"'"m*obile promising him to show gold the comptainant went to the spot along aw-ith'vhiVs -trie~.nd;~.-tnirst petitioner Ramesh and the second..oetiti_ot:ne.r Yeliappa--~a?ortg with three other persons were also preT_s'ent'.-..:_fFh'e';t:a*sked him to show the money and then the lit=../%t%tione_rs he_reiri..V_threatened the complainant and threw chilii ..i_lyl'_;.p4owder on h:s':teyes and snatcrted cash of Fts.45.DOO;'-. 3532/ S Cr|.P.1129/2010 these petitioners on bail against whom there are sire_iI'ar ailegations.

7. Accordiegty, the petition..~is..4Aa!lr§tr\rieVé;'t.--'I." petitioners are enlarged on bail subgect to'joltowing:C*oVnditions.§:"2.Vi"'~

i) The petitioners shalt peiirsoitnalvf bond" for Rs.25,000/-- the Vlikesvm amount tothe sati.~af:ae.tior.%,V':?§.és;t

ii) The with the evidence.

iii) apipear before the Court ESEGE dihf "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court