Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Ramesha @ Aids Ramesha on 20 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF LXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-70)
Present: Sri T.P.Ramalinge Gowda,
LXIX Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 20th day of September, 2016
SESSIONS CASE No.903/2015 &
452/2016
Complainant : State of Karnataka
By Kamakshipalya P.S.
(By Learned Public Prosecutor )
-V/S-
Accused : 1. Ramesha @ Aids Ramesha,
In SC No. 903/2015 s/o Ramanna,
gadabout 29 years,
r/at Near Raghavendra Mutt,
8th cross, Kalidasa layout,
Srinagar, Bangalore.
2. Deepu s/o Yogesh,
Aged about 25 years,
r/at No. 115, 4th cross,
near Bangalore Club,
C.K.Achukattu, Bengaluru.
3. Chandan Singh @ Chandan,
s/o Mohan Singh,
aged about 22 years,
r/a No. 5, Ramappa Ashrama,
A cross, Near Sharadha Colony,
2 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
Byatarayanapura, Mysore road,
Bengaluru.
4. Mallesha s/o Annayyappa
Aged about 25 years,
r/at near Eshwara Temple,
8th cross, I main, Bapujinagar,
Mysore road, Bengaluru.
Accused in 5. Srinivas @ Seena
SC No. 452/2016 @ Laggere Seena
s/o Thimmegowda, 31 years,
near Gangondanahally circle,
Lakshmipura, Kachonahally road,
Bangalore North.
1. Date of commission of offence : 12.1.2015
2. Date of report of occurrence : 12.1.2015
3. Date of commencement of evidence : 28.1.2015 in SC
No.903/15
8.7.2016 in SC
No. 452/2016
4. Date of closing of evidence : 1.9.2016
5. Name of the complainant : Mahesh
6. Offence complained of : U/s 395 and 397
of IPC
7. Opinion of the Judge : Charge not proved.
: COMMON JUDGMENT :
These two cases have been arisen out of common crime No.
23/2015 of Kamakshipalya P.S. In order to avoid the repetition
3 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
of work the common judgment has been passed as the evidence
adduced by the prosecution is common in both cases.
2. This Charge Sheet is filed by the Police Inspector of
Kamakshipalya Police Station, against accused for the offence
punishable Under section 395 and 397 of IPC.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.1.2015 at
about 21.45 hours at SM Technologies Cartridge Refilling Shop,
near Bus Stop, Neelgiri Thop, Hegganahalli road, when CW. 1 was
talking with CW. 2 to 6 suddenly the accused armed with deadly
weapons entered the shop by coming through Autorickshaw
bearing No. KA-05-B-5843 and KA-02-AD-4485 and closed the
shutters of the shop and A2 threatened them by showing
dragger and A1 by pointing dragger to CW 1 snatched one HTC
mobile and cash of Rs. 4000/- and A3 by pointing dragger
robbed one Samsung mobile and cash of Rs. 1500/- from CW 5
and A6 shown knife and robbed cash of Rs. 1500/- from CW.3
and A4 and A5 robbed one Samsung mobile from CW.2 by
showing knife, A1 shown dragger to CW.4 and robbed Samsung
mobile and A2 assaulted through dragger to CW.6 and A1
robbed gold chain from CW.6 and after doing the said act all the
accused left the spot through the autorickshaws. Accordingly
CW 1 lodged complaint against the accused for the offence
punishable U/Secs. 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code. The police
have filed the charge-sheet after detailed investigation against
the accused No.1 to 4 by showing A5 and A6 are absconding with
4 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
a request to file a separate Charge Sheet against them after
tracing.
4. The committal court after taking cognizance of the
charge-sheet registered in C.C. No.10022/2015 against accused
No.1 to 4 and in CC No. 2678/2016 against A5 committed the
case for trial under Sec. 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
after complying the provision of Sec. 207 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to Session court. In pursuant to the committal order,
on committal of the case, case against A1 to 4 came to be
registered as SC No. 903/2015. After securing the presence of
A5 a split case was registered and then committed to this Court
which came to be numbered as SC No. 452/2016. These two
cases have been made over to this Court for trial in accordance
with law. At the time of committal the accused were in judicial
custody. After hearing the prosecution and accused, my
predecessor has framed the charge for the offence u/sec. 395
and 397 of IPC against A1 to A4. The charge was read over and
explained to the accused. The accused have pleaded not guilty
and claims to be tried. Again the Charge was framed against A5
after hearing both the counsels. The A5 also pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
5. The Prosecution in all examined 12 witnesses as PW.1
to 12 and got marked 23 documents exhibited as Ex.P1 to P.23
and also got marked 10 material objects as MO.1 to 10 in SC
No.903/2015 and also examined 9 witnesses as PW. 1 to PW 9
5 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 in SC No. 452/2016. Even after
providing sufficient opportunity prosecution not able to secure
CW 5, 7 to 15. Hence they were dropped. CW. 16 is given up by
the prosecution and so also CW. 21 and 23. After the completion
of prosecution side evidence, the statement of the accused
U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C is recorded. The accused denied all
incriminating evidence adduced against them as false and total
denial is their defence.
6. Heard the arguments of learned public prosecutor
and defence counsel.
7. Perused the papers.
8. In the light of above materials, following points fall
for decision making of this court:-
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on 12.1.2015 at
about 21.45 hours at SM Technologies
Cartridge Refilling Shop, near Bus Stop,
Neelgiri Thop, Hegganahalli road, when
CW. 1 was talking with CW. 2 to 6 suddenly
the accused armed with deadly weapons
entered the shop by coming through
Autorickshaw bearing No. KA-05-B-5843
and KA-02-AD-4485 and closed the
shutters of the shop and A2 threatened
them by showing dragger and A1 by
pointing dragger to CW 1 snatched one
HTC mobile and cash of Rs. 4000/- and A3
by pointing dragger robbed one Samsung
6 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
mobile and cash of Rs. 1500/- from CW 5
and A6 shown knife and robbed cash of Rs.
1500/- from CW.3 and A4 and A5 robbed
one Samsung mobile from CW.2 by showing
knife, A1 shown dragger to CW.4 and
robbed Samsung mobile and A2 assaulted
through dragger to CW.6 and A1 robbed
gold chain from CW.6 and after doing the
same all the accused left the spot through
the autorickshaws and thereby committed
the offence punishable u/sec. 395 of IPC.
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place all the accused used
deadly weapon and caused grievous hurt to
CW.6 Mahesh and thereby committed the
offence punishable u/sec. 397 of IPC?
3. What order?
9. This court upon appreciation of available materials,
with reference to prevailing legal aspects, give findings to the
above points as follows:-
Point No.1 ; Negative
Point No.2 : Negative
Point No.3 - As per final order,
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S :
10. POINT NO.1 and 2 :- As per the canon of
criminal jurisprudence of our nation, prosecution has to bring
home alleged guilt of accused with production of cogent and
7 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
satisfactory evidence. Case of the accused is a total denial of
the version of prosecution. Prosecution to bring home guilt of
accused got examined 12 witnesses in SC No. 903/2015 and 10
witnesses in SC No. 452/2016.
11. PW.1/PW.1 Mahesh, PW.2 Girish, PW.3/PW.5
Veerbhadrappa, PW.4/PW.2 Balkrishna, PW.5/PW.3 Mahesh
have deposed that on 12.1.2015 at about 9.00 p.m. when they
were at SM Technology shop and were talking with each other
alongwith CW.5, about 6 persons entered the shop and one of
them by showing the knife snatched Rs. 4000/- and HTC mobile
from PW.1 Mahesh, two mobiles and cash of Rs. 700-800/- from
PW.2 Girsh, Rs. 1500/- from PW.3/PW.5 Veerbhadrappa, and
they assaulted Mahesh with knife and also snatched two Samsung
mobile from PW.2 Girish, two mobiles and cash of Rs. 9700/-
from PW.4/PW.2 Balkrishna and gold chain from Mahesh and
they assaulted Mahesh with dragger and left the spot.
Thereafter Mahesh took treatment at Kavitha Hospital and
from there he was shifted to Jayashree Nursing Home. They
further deposed that they do not know the numbers of the
autorickshaw and they do not know the face cut of that persons.
They have not identified the accused persons before the Court.
PW. 1 lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1, but he deposed that he do
not know the contents of Ex.P.1. PW. 1 admitted his signature
on Ex.P.3 and after one week from the date of incident the police
called them and shown the mobiles and they identified the
8 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
mobiles and they have not identified the photos of the autos.
The mobile belong to PW. 1 is marked as MO.1 and the mobile
belong to Girish is marked as MO.2, the mobile belong to
Shashikumar is marked as MO.3, the mobiles belong to
Balkrishna are marked as MO.4 and 5. The witnesses turned
hostile, not supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross
examination the statement of PW. 2 is marked Ex.P.7, statement
of PW.3 is marked as Ex.P.4, statement of PW. 4 is marked as
Ex.P.5, statement of PW. 5 is marked as Ex.P.6. The evidence of
these witnesses not supported the case of prosecution rather it
goes against to the root of the prosecution case. None of the
witnesses have identified the accused persons before the court
eventhough they identified the accused before the Executive
Magistrate during the test identification parade.
12. PW.6 Shivanna, the P.C of Kamakshipalya P.S. has
deposed that he alongwth CW 14 to 16 were deputed to trace
the accused and accordingly on receipt of credible information
they reached Sunkadkatte pipeline road and caught hold Ramesh
and Mallesh, Ramesh was holding dragger, Mallesh was holding
one knife and 4-5 mobiles and two gold chain pieces were found
in a plastic cover which was kept in the Auto No. KA-02-AD-
4485. Accordingly they brought them alongwith the auto to the
P.S. and produced before CW.22 and CW.14 Naganna submitted
report in this regard which is marked as Ex.P.8. The witness
identified the accused and the dragger and knife which are
9 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
marked as MO.7 and 8, and also identified MO 6 the gold chain,
MO.2 to 5 the mobile phones. In his cross examination he admits
that I O has not given any physical and facial features of the
accused or the photo of the accused and he has not conducted
any mahazar and he also admits that he has not able to depose
any special features of the accused regarding their
identification. Though evidence of this witness is believeable as
he has discharged his duty in his official capacity, that itself not
suffice to hold that the accused before the court have
committed the alleged offence. The recovery witnesses are not
produced before the court for examination and opportunity has
not been provided for the defence counsel to test their veracity.
13. PW.7/PW.4 Dr. Kavitha has deposed that on 12.1.2015
she treated Mahesh who came with the history of assault with
dragger and she found lacerated injury on stomach measuring
3X1 cm and injury on left thumb measuring 3X1 cm and a
lacerated injury on left shoulder measuring 2 X 1 cm and blood
was oozing. She deposed that she entered the same in MLC. The
requisition of the police is marked as Ex.P.9 and the wound
certificate is marked as Ex.P.10. She further deposed that the
injuries found on the stomach were serious injuries and the
injuries found on the hands were simple injuries. She further
deposed that the above said injuries may cause with dragger
MO.8. In the cross examination by the defence counsel she
admitted that she had not mentioned the nature of injuries in
10 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
Ex.P.10 and the police have not obtained any opinion from her
regarding dragger. She denied the suggestions put by defence
counsel. PW. 10/PW.8 Dr. Raju K is another doctor who gave the
treatment to the injured. He deposed that on 12.1.2015 at about
11.00 p.m. he treated PW. 1 Mahesh who brought with the history
of assault and after getting first aid treatment Mahesh gone to
other hospital for further treatment. In this regard he gave
report as per Ex.P.13, Ex.P.13(a) is his signature. After obtaining
preliminary treatment from PW. 7 and 10 the injured has got
admitted in Jaishree hospital where PW.12/PW.10 Dr. Ramdev
treated him. He has deposed that on 13.1.2015 at about 4.00 he
treated the victim Mahesh who was brought by PW. 5 and he
found that initially the injured obtaining treatment from other
hospital and later came to their hospital and he also found 3.8
cm X 2 cm wound on stomach and blood was oozing and there was
swelling and he also found injury on left hand and left thumb. He
further deposed that after giving anesthesia they put stitches
on stomach and treated the wound and put pressure bandage and
after 3 days the patient was discharged on 16.1.2015. The wound
certificate is marked as Ex.P.16 and Case Sheet is marked as
Ex.P.17. He further deposed that the injuries were fresh and
the injury found on stomach was serious in nature and remaining
injuries were simple in nature. He further deposed that the
injuries stated above may cause with MO.7 and 8. In cross
examination he denied that he has not given treatment to the
patient and he admitted that there is no entry in the Wound
11 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
Certificate regarding who assaulted the victim. He also
admitted that the patient was in a position to talk and there
was no difficult to obtain assailants name from the victim. He
admitted that he has not given Medico Legal Case entry to the
police. He denied that the victim Mahesh has not obtained
treatment from their hospital. Though evidence of these three
witnesses is believeable regarding the injuries sustained by the
victim Mahesh none of the witnesses and even the injured are
not deposed before the court regarding who has committed the
said injuries to him and the said accused are also not identified
before the court. Hence this part of evidence eventhough
supports the prosecution does not helps in holding that the
accused are responsible for the said incident and causing
injuries.
14. PW. 8/PW.6 Prathap witness to the spot mahazar as
per Ex.P.2 and PW.9/PW.7 Sunil, witness to the recovery
mahazar Ex.P.11 have deposed that they put their signatures at
P.S. on a paper, but they do not know the contents of it, the
signature of the witnesses is marked as Ex.P.2(c) and Ex.P.11(a)
respectively. The witnesses turned hostile, not supported the
case of the prosecution. In the cross examination also they
have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW. 9 not
identified the accused before the court. In the cross
examination the statement of PW. 9 is marked as Ex.P.12. In a
criminal case panch witnesses are most important witnesses in
12 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
connecting the crime and the accused and also crime scene. But
these two witnesses have not supported the case, hence it is
fatal to the case of the prosecution.
15. PW.11/P.W.9 Gnanamurthy T.N., the then PSI of
Kamakshipalya P.S. has deposed that on 12.1.2015 at about 11.30
he received the complaint from PW.1 and prepared the FIR and
submitted to the Court, the complaint is marked as Ex.P.1, and
the FIR is marked as Ex.P.14 and on the same day recorded the
statements of PW.2 to 6 and conducted mahazar in the presence
of Girish, Prathap, Krishnamurthy which is marked as Ex.P.2 and
on 15.1.2015 deputed the CW. 13 to 15 to trace the accused and
also the robbed articles. Accordingly CW. 13 to 15 have traced
and produced A2 and A3 with autorickshaw No. KA-05-B-5843
and two draggers and submitted their report as per Ex.P.15. He
further deposed that he recorded the voluntary statement of
the accused and subjected the auto and the dragger to PF No.
18/15, the auto and the dragger are marked as MO.7 and 8. He
recorded the statement of CW.13 to 15. On 18.1.2015 deputed
CW.14 to 17 to trace remaining accused and at about 9.00 p.m. on
the same day CW. 14 to 17 traced and produced A1 and A4
alongwith Auto No. KA-02-AD-4485 and two gold chain pieces
weighing 16 grams and one knife, one dragger, HTC mobile, 4
Samsung mobiles. They submitted the report as per Ex.P.8. He
further deposed that he subjected the above articles to PF No.
21/2015. He deposed that he seized two draggers, one auto
13 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
from accused Chandansingh and Deepu under mahazar Ex.P.11
and he seized the knife and dragger which are marked as MO.9
and 10, the HTC mobile which is marked as MO.11, 4 Samsung
mobiles which are marked as MO.2 to 5 from the accused
Ramesh and Mallesh and he identified the gold chain before the
court. He seized the above articles under mahazar Ex.P.19 in the
presence of panchas Dhanush and Eshwar. He recorded the
statements of panchas and complainants. On 19.1.2015 A1
Ramesh, A4 Mallesh have been produced before the court and on
21.1.2015 he called PW.1 to 5 and CW 5 and shown the seized
articles and the vehicles and weapons and after they identified
the same he recorded their statements and on 23.1.2015 he
issued requisition as per Ex.P.20 and 21 to issue wound
certificate of Mahesh. He received the report from Kavitha
Hospital which is marked as Ex.P.10 and also received the report
from Lakshmi Hospital as per Ex.P.13 and also received the
report from Jayashree Hospital as per Ex.P.16. He further
deposed that on 23.1.2015 he made submission to the Court to
conduct test identification parade as per the letter which is
marked as Ex.P.22 and accordingly on 26.3.2015 the Taluka
Magistrate conducted test identification parade and the
complainant, PW 2 to 5 and CW. 5 identifieeeeed the accused,
they given their statement as per Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7
respectively and on 27.3.2015 he handed over the further
investigation to CW.23. He further deposed that the photos of
autorickshaw bearing No. KA-05-5843 is marked as Ex.P.23 and
14 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
the said autorickshaws were produced by A2 and A3 and he
identified the accused before the Court. In his cross
examination he admits that pancha witnesses are not the locals
and they are the friends of complainant and he admits that he
has not collected the blood stains present in the spot and he
also admits that he has not obtained the permission from the
Doctor and also not certified regarding his condition for giving
statement and he admits that his staff are not recorded the
mahzar to seize and arrest the accused at the spot itself and he
also admits that he has seized the articles in the P.S. itself and
he has not obtained the signature of the panchas on the seized
articles. He further admits that he has not enquired with the
owners of the mobiles seized, the autorickshaw and he has not
seized the blood stained clothes of PW.5 and he has also not
made Dr.Giridhar who treated the victim in Lakshmi Nurshing
Home as witness and he deposed that he unable to say where he
obtained the statement of injured out of 3 Hospitals in which he
took the treatment. From these admissions the fairness and
transparency of investigation is not followed by the IO. The
admissions of victim also shows that he has not followed the
procedure of law regarding conducting of mahzar, taking
statement of the injured in the hospital and also investigation.
16. On careful analysis of the entire evidence adduced by
the prosecution, the victim and other eye witnesses of the
prosecution have not supported the case in its material
15 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
particulars. They have not identified the accused and clearly
deposed in their chief examination that some 6 persons came and
assaulted them and robbed their articles, but the accused
before the Court are not those persons. Hence the direct
evidence of the prosecution witnesses to connect the accused to
the alleged crime is not forthcoming. Further by indirect method
the Investigating Authority can also connect the accused to the
crime by way of recoveries. Regarding the proving of the
recoveries the examined pancha witnesses turned hostile and the
other pancha witnesses have not been examined by the
prosecution even after providing sufficient opportunity. Hence
non examination of other panch witnesses to prove the
recoveries is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The entire
evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to hold
that accused are guilty and they have committed the offence as
alleged. Accordingly this Court can safely hold that, the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges
leveled against the accused. Hence the evidence on record
creates doubt regarding the commission of the alleged offence
by the accused. Therefore, the benefit of doubt is extended to
the accused as they deserves for it. Accordingly the accused
deserves for acquittal. Hence point no.1 and 2 are answered in
the negative.
17. POINT NO.3:- In the light of findings, on above
points accused to be acquitted for the offences U/Sec. 395 and
16 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
397 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this court proceeds to
pass the following:-
O R D E R
In exercise of power vested with this court U/Sec.235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, it is ordered that accused No.1 to 4 and 5 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused are set at free for the said offences.
Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. The Central Jail authorities are directed to release A1 to A4 in SC No. 903/2015 and A5 in SC No. 452/2016 who are in judicial custody, if their custody is not required in any other cases.
Issue release order.
All the MOs are ordered to be preserved till disposal of split up case to be registered against A6.
Keep the original judgment in SC No. 903/2015 and the copy thereof in SC No. 452/2016. (Typed to my online dictation by the J.W., corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of September, 2016.) (T.P.Ramalinge Gowda) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
17 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION PW1/PW.1 Mahesh PW2 Girish PW3/PW.5 Veerbhadrappa PW4/PW.2 Balkrishna PW5/PW.3 Mahesh s/oShankarappa PW6 Shivanna PW7/PW.4 Dr. Kavitha PW8/PW.6 Prathap PW9/PW.7 Sunil PW10/PW.8 Raju PW11/PW.9 Gnanmurthy PW12/PW.10 Dr. Ramdev LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION IN SC NO. 903/2015:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P 2 Spot mahazar
Ex.P 3 2nd Notice
Ex.P4 Statement of PW.3
Ex.P.5 Statement of PW.4
Ex.P.6 Statement of PW.5
Ex.P.7 Statement of PW.2
Ex.P.8 Report
Ex.P.9 Requisition letter
Ex.P.10 Medical report
Ex.P.11 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.12 Statement of PW.4
Ex.P.13 Statement of PW.4
Ex.P.14 FIR
Ex.P.15 Report
Ex.P.16 Wound certificate
Ex.P.17 Case sheet
Ex.P.18 Photograph of autorickshaw
18 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016
Ex.P.19 Seizure mahazar
Ex.P.20 Request letter
Ex.P.21 Request letter
Ex.P.22 Requisition for test identification parade
Ex.P.23 Photo of autorickshaw
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PROSECUTION IN SC NO. 452/2016:
Ex.P.1 Copy of Complaint Ex.P 2 Copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P.3 Copy of Statement of witness Ex.P.4 Copy of Statement of Balkrishna Ex.P.5 Copy of Statement of Mahesh Ex.P.6 Copy of requisition letter Ex.P.7 Report of Kavitha hospital Ex.P.8 Report of Kavitha hospital Ex.P.9 Statement of PW.5 Ex.P.10 Copy of Seizure mahazar Ex.P.11 Copy of Statement of witness Ex.P.12 Copy of Letter of Lakshmi Hospital Ex.P.13 Ex.P.14 FIR Ex.P.15 Report Ex.P.16 Wound certificate Ex.P.17 Case sheet Ex.P.18 Photo of autorickshaw Ex.P.19 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.20 Requisition letter Ex.P.21 "
Ex.P.22 Requisition for test identification parade LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:NIL MO.1 : HTC mobile MO.2 to 5 : Samsung mobile MO.6 : gold chain 19 S.C.No.903/2015 & 452/2016 MO.7 : dragger Mo.8&9 : two knives MO.10 : one dragger LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR ACCUSED : Nil (T.P.Ramalinge Gowda) LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.20 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court, vide separate Judgment O R D E R In exercise of power vested with this court U/Sec.235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, it is ordered that accused No.1 to 4 and 5 are acquitted for the offences punishable U/Sec. 395 and 397 of Indian Penal Code.
Accused are set at free for the said offences.
Bail bond and surety bond stands cancelled. The Central Jail authorities are directed to release A1 to A4 in SC No. 903/2015 and A5 in SC No. 452/2016 who are in judicial custody, if their custody is not required in any other cases.
Issue release order.
All the MOs are ordered to be preserved till disposal of split up case to be registered against A6.
LXIX Addl.C.C. & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.21 S.C.No.903/2015 &
452/2016 22 S.C.No.903/2015 & 452/2016