Dismissed

Vinay @ Nani S/O Ravi Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2021CRL.P/101613/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench disposed of four bail petitions arising from Crime No.108/2020 involving murder. Court dismissed three regular bail petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and one anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., finding sufficient grounds to reject bail due to gang warfare and witness safety risks.

What did the court decide?

All four bail petitions (two regular and two anticipatory) were dismissed; bail applications rejected.

Vinay @ Nani S/O Ravi Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101484/2020

¶6

C/W.

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101613/2020,

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100057/2021,

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100068/2021.

¶10

IN CRL.P.NO.101484/2020 BETWEEN:

¶11

ASHOK S/O. LATE SATHYAVANTA, AGE-26 YEARS, OCC-COOK IN SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICE, R/O. WARD NO.33, NEAR ESHWAR TEMPLE, SHIVALINGA NAGAR, BALLARI-583 101.

¶12

LOKESH S/O.LATE HULUGAPPA, AGE-25 YEARS, OCC-NIL(STUDY), R/O.NEAR MAREMMA TEMPLE,

¶13

BASAPURA VILLAGE, GENIKKIHAL POST, KURUGODU TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶14

AJITH S/O.PRABHURAJ,

¶15

AGE-19 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS,

¶16

¶17

R/O.W.NO.25, BEHIND ST.JOSEPH SCHOOL,

¶18

TINKER STREET, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583 101.

¶19

NAVEEN S., S/O.SATHYAMURTHY S., AGE-32 YEARS, OCC-PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.WARD NO.26, NALLACHERAVU, TEACHER COLONY, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583 101.

¶20

.. PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI B.ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580 011.

¶24

GOPAL NAIK S/O.DASYA NAIK, AGE-30 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.105, WARD NO.29, 1^ST CROSS, OPP. OLD FOREST QUARTERS, NEAR BELAGAL CROSS, RAMANJANEYA NAGAR, BALLARI-583 101.

¶25

.. RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY MISS SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R-1) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2-SERVED)

¶27

THIS PETITION IS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.7, 10, 20 AND 21 UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C FOR ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.7, 10, 20 AND 21 ON BAIL IN CRIME

¶28

¶29

NO.108/2020 REGISTERED IN COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 120B, 212, 147, 148 AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989 AND SECTIONS 4, 25, 1(B) OF ARMS ACT PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶30

IN CRL.P.NO.101613/2020 BETWEEN:

¶31

VINAY @ NANI S/O.RAVI KUMAR, AGE-26 YEARS, OCC-AUTO DRIVER, R/O.RENIKA NAGAR, TALUR ROAD, BALLARI-580 121.

¶32

SATISH S/O.RAMESH, AGE-23 YEARS, OCC-PAINTING WORK, R/O.KHB COLONY, NEAR BISHOP HOUSE, BALLARI-580 121.

¶33

KIRAN KUMAR @ ESU S/O. LATE SOMANNA, AGE-29 YEARS, OCC-AUTO DRIVER, R/O.NAGALKERE, NEAR GOVINDAS HOUSE, BALLARI-580 121.

¶34

SHARUKH @ SHERU S/O.MASTHAN VALI, AGE-22 YEARS, OCC-AUTO DRIVER, R/O.1^ST CROSS, DEVINAGAR BALLARI-58122.

¶35

.. PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SRI B.ANWAR BASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶37

And:

¶38

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY

¶39

¶40

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580 011.

¶41

GOPAL NAIK S/O.DASA NAIK, AGE-30 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.105, WARD NO.29, 1^ST CROSS, OPP. OLD FOREST QUARTERS, NEAR BELAGAL CROSS, RAMANJANEYA NAGAR, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583 101.

¶42

.. RESPONDENTS (BY MISS SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R-1) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2-SERVED)

¶43

THIS PETITION IS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.8, 6, 12 AND 17 UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C FOR ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.8, 6, 12 AND 17 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.108/2020 REGISTERED IN COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 120B, 109, 212, 147, 148 AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989 AND SECTIONS 4, 25, 1(B) OF ARMS ACT PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶44

IN CRL.P.NO.100057/2021 BETWEEN:

¶45

NAGARAJA S/O.HULUGAPPA, AGE-27 YEARS, OCC-LABOUR, R/O. NEAR BASAMMA SCHOOL, JAGRUTHI NAGAR, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI-583 102.

¶46

.. PETITIONER

¶47

(BY SRI J.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶48

¶49

AND:

¶50

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580 008.

¶51

SRI GOPAL NAIK S/O.DASA NAIK, AGE-30 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.105, WARD NO.29, 1^ST CROSS, OPP. OLD FOREST QUARTERS, NEAR BELAGAL CROSS, RAMANJANEYA NAGAR, COWL BAZAAR, BALLARI-583 102.

¶52

.. RESPONDENTS

¶53

(BY MISS SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP FOR R-1) (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2-SERVED)

¶54

THIS PETITION IS FILED BY THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.18 UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C FOR ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.18 ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.108/2020 REGISTERED IN COWL BAZAAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 120B, 109, 212, 147, 148 AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2), 2(V) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989 AND SECTIONS 4, 25, 1(B) OF ARMS ACT NOW ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BALLARI IN CRIME NO.108/2020 IN SOFAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.18 IS CONCERNED ONLY PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶55

¶56

IN CRL.P.NO.100068/2021 BETWEEN:

¶57

DAWOOD SHAIK S/O. LATE SALEEM SHAIK, AGE-22 YEARS, OCC-DRIVER, R/O. NEAR KOTE MALLESHWARA TEMPLE, FORT, BALLARI-583 101.

¶58

.. PETITIONER

¶59

(BY SRI SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶60

AND:

¶61

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT BALLARI-583 101, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶62

.. RESPONDENT

¶63

(BY MISS SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶64

THIS PETITION IS FILED BY THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.15 UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C AND PRAYED TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.15 IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN RESPECT OF CRIME NO.108/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 120B, 109, 212, 147, 148 AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(V) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989 AND SECTIONS 1(B), 4, 25 1(B) OF ARMS ACT NOW ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BALLARI IN CRIME NO.108/2020 IN SOFAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.15 IS CONCERNED ONLY PENDING TRIAL OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶65

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING AND RESERVED FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶66

¶67

O R D E R

¶68

Criminal Petition No.101484/2020 filed by the accused Nos.7, 10, 20 and 21, Criminal Petition No.101613/2020 filed by the accused Nos.6, 8, 12 and 17, Criminal Petition No.100057/2021 filed by the accused No.18. Above three petitions have been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for granting regular bail, whereas Criminal Petition No.100068/2021 filed by the accused No.15 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for granting anticipatory bail.

¶69

Since all these petitions are arising out of the same crime registered by the Cowlbazar Police Station in Crime No.108/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 102B, 212, 147, 148 and 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the SC/ST PA Act’) and Sections 4, 25 1(B) of the Indian Arms Act.

¶70

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.B.Anwar Basha as well as Sri.Srinivas B. Naik, Sri J.Basavaraj and learned HCGP Miss Seema Shiva Naik for respondent-State.

¶71

¶72

The case of prosecution is that on the complaint filed by the brother of deceased namely-Gopal Naik on 25.07.2020 the police registered a case against accused No.1-Ajay Kishor and other unknown persons. It is alleged by the complainant that he is having brothers namely Ramesh Naik, C.D. Ravi and Manju Naik. His one of the elder brother-C.D.Ravi has been murdered by the accused No.1 and his gang in the year 2014 and a murder case has been registered against the accused No.1 and his gang members, which is pending before the Sessions Court. About 2-3 months prior to the present incident, the accused No.1 approached his another brotherRamesh Naik-deceased for compromising the (C.D.Ravi) murder case and also threatened to kill him, if he has not compromised the case and in turn, his brother-Ramesh Naik-deceased told about the same and the said Ramesh Naik refused to compromise the said case. However, he has not chosen to file any complaint against the accused No.1 before the police. Such being the case, on 25.07.2020 at about 4.30 p.m. his brother-Manju Naik telephoned him and told that his brother-Ramesh Naik has been attacked by the accused No.1-Ajay Kishor and his gang. Immediately, he went to the spot and saw his brother brutally assaulted and killed and he has shifted

¶73

¶74

his brother to the hospital, where he has declared as died. He also given the auto rickshaw number in which the accused No.1 and 5 came and murdered his brother. Based upon the complaint, police registered the case. During the investigation, they have arrested the accused persons and they have been remanded to judicial custody. Police also filed charge sheet after completion of the investigation.

¶75

The accused Nos.6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 17, 18, 20 and 21 have moved bail applications before the Sessions Judge for granting regular bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, they are before this Court. Whereas, accused No.15 has been apprehends his arrest in the hands of the police and he has moved anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, which also came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this Court.

¶76

The learned counsel Sri B. Anwar Basha appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.101484/2020 and Criminal Petition No.101613/2020 has contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. Their names have not been mentioned in the FIR. Even otherwise the dispute is only between

¶77

¶78

the accused No.1 and deceased. These petitioners are nothing to do with the commission of offences. Even otherwise, the allegations against other petitioners are that after commission of the murder by accused Nos.1 to 5, they went to the house of accused No.10Lokesh and stayed their along with him for 2 hours, where accused Nos.6 and 20 have purchased liquor and drunk together. Later, they are all went to Kurugodu along with accused No.21 and stayed at Kurugodu. After meeting the accused No.9, they went to Harihar. On 01.08.2020, accused persons were apprehended by the police. There are no charges against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, which is only against the accused Nos.1 to 5. Only offences punishable under Sections 120B and 212 of IPC were attracted against these petitioners and against accused No.8, only offence under Section 212 of IPC has been attracted, as against accused Nos.17 Sections 120B of IPC and under Section 3(2)((v) of the SC/ST PA Act is attracted. He further contended that the deceased also doing sand business illegally and accused No.1 helped the other accused persons to collect money from him. However, there is no meeting of mines by the accused persons for hatching conspiracy to commit the murder. The accused

¶79

¶80

No.10 only given shelter to the other accused without knowing the offence committed by them. Only the eyewitness is C.W.12, who was not stated anything about these petitioners. They are in custody for more than 6 months. They are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. He prayed for granting bail.

¶81

The learned Counsel Sri Srinivas B. Naik appearing for petitioner/accused No.15 has contended that the name of accused No.15 has not found anywhere in the charge sheet, except he was a driver and friend of accused No.1, absolutely there is no material against him. The name of this petitioner implicated only on the basis of voluntary statement given by the accused No.1 and there is no bad antecedents against this petitioner and no case registered against him, there is no any recovery also from him. He is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

¶82

Learned counsel Sri.J.Basavaraj appearing for

¶83

petitioner/accused No.18 has contended that absolutely there is no evidence against the accused No.18 to connect with the crime. The allegations against him is in respect of conspiracy with the accused

¶84

¶85

No.1 about 6 months prior to the incident that himself and other accused were trying to commit murder of Ravi Naik by going to Sub-registrar’s office and they returned back as unsuccessful due to presence of public near the said office. Absolutely there is no corroborative evidence or seizure of any material from this accused. Even for attracting Section 120B of IPC there is no material against this petitioner. Therefore, the Court should not ordinarily reject the bail petition regarding offence under Section 120B of IPC cases. The statements of witnesses cannot be reliable that case is based upon the voluntary statement of the accused, which is not reliable. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

¶86

Per Contra , the learned HCGP Miss Seema Shiva Naik objected all these petitions and contended that there is an eyewitness-CW-12 to the incident, who speaks about the assault on the deceased-Ramesh Naik. Accused Nos.1 to 5 came in a auto rickshaw and committed murder and thereafter they fled away to the house of accused No.10 and they stayed with accused No.10, where other accused persons also joined with them. All of these accused persons are belongs to the same gang. Previously, one of

¶87

¶88

brother of complainant’s C.D.Ravi has been murdered by the accused No.1, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 and the said case is pending before the Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.96/2013. The accused No.1 and his gang assisted the other accused persons and have threatened the deceased-Ramesh Naik to become hostile and to compromise the case, where the deceased-Ramesh Naik was the complainant in the murder case of C.D.Ravi. Therefore, the accused persons were hatched conspiracy to commit murder of the main witness and complainant in the murder case and committed murder of Ramesh Naik. All the accused persons were criminally conspired with the accused No.1 and they are belongs to same gang. If they granted bail, definitely they will commit the murder of complainant in this case namely-Gopal Naik is not ruled out, already they have killed two brothers of Gopal Naik’s and they likely to commit murder of others also. CW-12 eyewitness and other circumstantial witnesses were clearly spoken about the commission of offence hatched conspiracy by the accused. Therefore, she has contended that if petitioners are granted bail, definitely they attacking the witnesses and threatening the witnesses are not ruled out. Accused No.18 also conspired with the accused No.1 to commit murder and

¶89

¶90

also attempted to commit murder and was unsuccessful in the previous occasion. Hence, she prayed for rejection of bail petitions filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. She also contended that accused No.15 who is also gang member of accused No.1. He already attempted to attack the Ramesh Naik, but it was unsuccessful. He also gang member of accused No.1 therefore he is not entitled for granting anticipatory bail. Hence, she prayed for rejecting the petition filed by accused No.15.

¶91

Upon considering the arguments addressed by the learned counsels for the respective petitioners and learned HCGP and perused the charge sheet materials available on record. It is not in dispute that the accused Nos.1, 11 to 14, 18 and 19 are facing trial in Sessions Case No.96/2013, wherein they have committed murder of brother of deceased namely-C.D.Ravi and accused No.1 wants to compromise the case and approached the other persons to compromise the case with the deceased-Ramesh Naik, who is the complainant in C.D.Ravi’s murder case, when the complainant-Ramesh Naik refused to compromise the case, accused hatched the conspiracy with the other accused persons and they are

¶92

¶93

committed attempt to murder, but it was unsuccessful. Again they engaged accused Nos.6-Sathish and 20-Ajith for watching the moments of deceased-Ramesh Naik. The accused No.1 also hatched conspiracy with the accused No.7-Ashok who is the resident of the place of occurrence. Then accused-Ashok and Harish have given the information about the business of deceased-Ramesh Naik to the accused No.1 . About 4 months back, they got the information that in the Sub-Registrar’s office the deceased-Ramesh Naik, his brother-Manju Naik, one Imran and complainant in this case were present, at that time, the accused No.1 sent one Satish (A-6) for confirming the presence of the witnesses and the complainant. Immediately, Ganesh, Moses Immanuel S., Umesh, Siraj, Yesu, Harish, Sharukh @ Sheru, Dawood, Dance Ravi, Nagaraj and Mahendra were all went in a auto rickshaw of one Mehaboob Basha @ Kapil with deadly weapons near the Sub-Registrar’s office, but there they found so many people present near the said office therefore, they came back. Again Satish and Ajith gave information about the moments of the complainant, the said gang again went near the Saint Joseph’s School, by that time, complainant went from there by his motor cycle. Thereafter, on 25.07.2020 the

¶94

¶95

accused persons were succeeded in committing the murder of the deceased-Ramesh Naik. On perusal of the entire records, the offences alleged against the accused Nos.1 to 5 though they actively participatory on the date of incident but this accused No.15 and other accused persons were also belongs to same gang. They are also twice made attempt to commit the murder of deceasedRamesh Naik and the complainant and another brother Manju Naik about 4 months prior to the incident and another attempt near the Saint Joseph’s School. But they were unsuccessful. But later they successful in murdering of the Ramesh Naik and who is the complainant in the murder case of C.D.Ravi, which clearly goes to show that all these accused persons conspired to commit murder of deceased-Ramesh Naik and even to this complainant-Gopal Naik and another brother Manju Naik after committing the murder of their another brother one C.D.Ravi. Offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B and 212 of IPC and provision under the SC/ST PA Act attracts against the some of the accused persons. But Section 120B of IPC attracts all the accused persons they are successful in committing the murder of the deceased.

¶96

¶97

As regards accused No.18, learned counsel Sri J. Basavaraj has contended that there is no material against this accused No.18 except Section 120B of IPC. But on perusal of the records, this petitioner is also an accused in earlier case i.e., Sessions Case No.96/2013 by committing murder of C.D.Ravi and he was facing trial and in order to get acquittal by this accused. The accused No.1 and others were trying to compromise the case where the deceased refused to compromise therefore, accused No.1 and others along with this petitioner/accused No.18 were conspired to commit the murder of deceased-Ramesh Naik. He/accused No.18 along with other accused already made an attempt to commit murder of deceased. But it was unsuccessful for two attempts and he is an accused in earlier murder case of brother of deceased in this case. Later he has conspired to commit murder of Ravi Naik who is main witness to the case. Therefore, it cannot be said there is no material against the petitioner/accused No.18 in order to show he has not involved in commission of murder of C.D.Ravi. The Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.18, in the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. and Another passed in Criminal Appeal

¶98

¶99

No.154/2020 (arising out of S.L.P.(Crl)No.9209/2019) on

¶100

24.01.2020 , wherein it is held that dismissal of bail filed by the complainant against the granting of bail by the High Court and to cancel the bail Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected and hold once the High Court granted bail by considering the merit it cannot be interfered with.

¶101

By looking to the fats and circumstances of the case, the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra will not come to the aid of the petitioner/accused No.18. This petitioner/accused No.18 involved in brother’s murder case of deceased and in earlier case and again involved in committing murder of deceased i.e., in the present case. Such being the case, the argument addressed by the counsel for accused No.18 is not acceptable.

¶102

As regards to accused No.15 also actively participated in the commission of murder hatching conspiracy in the crime. The accused persons and the complainant are rival gangs, if the petitioners granted bail, definitely there is every possibility of attacking the complainant-Gopal Naik and his brother-Manju Naik is not ruled out, as they are already killed the deceased-Ramesh Naik

¶103

¶104

who is witness and complainant in the murder case of C.D.Ravi. Every accused have participated in conspiracy and committing the murder of the deceased. They are all belongs to same gang. The Police have arrested almost all the gang members of the accused No.1 and filed the charge sheet against them. If petitioners are granted bail, there is every possibility of they committing similar offence of threatening the prosecution witnesses and even committing the murder of complainant is not ruled out. In order to avoid further offence, even there is every possibility of complainant’s gang making attack on the accused gang, if they released on bail and keep the peace in the locality and avoiding future offences and to safeguard the interest of witnesses and accused, it is deem fit and proper to dismiss the bail petitions of these accused persons. The material placed on record is sufficient goes to show that all the accused persons involved in the commission of offence. The accused persons are habitual offenders. Though there was no other case registered against the accused No.15, but he has actively participated in attacking the deceasedRamesh Naik on the previous occasion, but unsuccessful. These accused persons are having so many cases registered against them.

¶105

¶106

Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners are not entitled for granting either regular bail or anticipatory bail as prayed for by them. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶107

ORDER

¶108

Criminal Petition No.101484/2020, Criminal Petition

¶109

No.101613/2020 and Criminal Petition No. 100057/2021 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C and Criminal Petition No.100068/2021 filed by the accused No.15 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are hereby dismissed.

¶110

Sd/JUDGE

¶111

Ckk

Vinay @ Nani S/O Ravi Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay @ Nani S/O Ravi Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jahangeer S/O Imamsab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramadas Vithoba Anvekar Vs Mohan Vasanth Raikar S/O Vasant M.Raikar

Sabiya W/O Umar Farooq Aga Vs Umar Farooq @ (Zuheb) S/O Mushtaq Ahmed Aga

Fayaz @ Fhayu S/O. Abdul Sab Tailar Vs State of Karnataka

Ashok S/O. Late Sathyavanta Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O Vittal Badiger Vs State of Karnataka