Karnataka High Court
Mantalingaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TRIS THE f DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2e1Q,tgI,
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PAc3nApfigEmf
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6é491Q§i2de9'i
BETWEEN:
Mantalingaiah,
S/o. Rachappa,
Aged about 57 years, .
R/o. No.279, Newamxtensionj V
N.R.Mohall, _ "R' 1 :_;1a_~o«_ *
Mysore. H{ §'_ _'.'. ,~." "I" PETITIONER/S
[By Sri. Pfasaofie Kfimaf F f"Ad§;1
AND:'
The State 5:_Ka;fia:ékaLf3
By Vijayanaga: Police Station,
_Mysore3 I ~_ V
4 Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
A\High_Coutt«Bfii;ding,
Egnga1o;é¢1T';_=. m RESPONDENT/S
{fly Ski. Rejeisubramanya Bhat.}
'k'k*
.",*,Tfiis Crl.P. is filed u/Section 439 Cr.P.C. by
=_ «the Advocate for the petitioner, praying to enlarge
"uthef petitioner on bail in Crime No 186/2005 of
»__ "gvijayanagar Police Station, for the offences P/u/s.
1 ~_147, 114, 148, 448, 354, 365, 302 and 201 r/w. 149
IPC.
This Crl.P. having been heard and reserved for
Order, this day Pachhapure J., pronouncedf the
following: i" 3
ORDER
The petition is filed seeking bail having been} arrested and chargesheeted in'V Sessions: Case' No.1/2007 for the offence punishable gags: Sections "114, 147, 148, 443, 35§;fl365,"3¢?,F2Ql r/wC'i49 IPC.
2. The facts relevant for the fifiryose of this petition are_as underf.1 One """ "Sam§athWg§flmer. had» lodged a complaint on
18.ll.2h05 against 13 accused persons including the petitioner', for _ the, foffenses punishable under _ Sections 114, 144, 148, 448, 354, 355 r/w. 149 IPC. AV_He summits that on 18.11.2005 his mother Gangamma lye , the deceased was kidnapped from her house on 1?;i£.2§O$a5 at about 9.00 p.m. as per the ."eihstruotions5of the petitioner. The complainant was lh informe& of this "fact by his neighbours viz , "*._ga£nna§ma' ané Geethé, who are the eye-witnesses. hThe "Police" made :efforts to trace his mother afiprehending that she might have been tortured by the petitioner" and other accused in an unknown mil 5 flrL.? iéfid Q?
within four months and in such circumstances, rejected the petition holding that in case if the trial is not concluded within a period of yfiour months, the petitioner is at liberty to seek the bail. It is under these circumstances again the . petitioner has moved this Court fior bailktwjii
3. The petitioner submits that the triaiflhasg not concluded by the time prescribed by this court . and that there is no materiai against him ior the offence registered. 'He aiso;sdbmits that he is the sole bread earner and Jhaiigi from Q;" respectable family.j He also states that he is a peace loving citizen and"underthhesktc"abide by any conditions that may be imposed for his release on bail. It is f.a1so'his1submission that he has been suffering from diabetesigbioqd pressure and the injuries that are id'-Voccnrred are not healed and that the diabetes is gu_ not under: control. fie also submits that it is "= necessary for him to take treatment by a private '2p"doctor.
4. Later a memo has been filed stating that the petitioner intends to sell his property as he requires money for the purpose of treatment and 54 The blood sugarwFasting 63 mg%, ,Post Prandial 232 mg%fm On 02.01.2010 when he was examined;5 Vn' ~Fasting 5l'mg%g
-9935 'mg%
12. So far as "diabeteSzti§* concerned, the report reveals that the doetor by éieing treatment have controlied the spgaf. '%fiéwgardiologists have opined that his a§fidi§i§§t;g normal. So far as the injuries tttt iare ig§§¢e§§ea,_ he has been advised alternate def dreseing and split skin grafting? The ophthalmologist has ad§ised to take vitreowretinal isurgeonsnand opined for further nenagement. There 7is* e ;na5tg¢;igng ulcer over the left leg and éelinlites" hf} right Efoot. At the time 'when the afietitioner was admitted in the hospital blood sugar {fies high; Buti efter the treatment, the petitioner W ha; heen exemined on 02.01.2010 and there is control "»V£h' the bleed? sugar and in the circumstances, the nicer wonldiheal in due course of time. é": ;:- E. %é: