Karnataka Court March 2012 Judgments
Kerodi Ganapathi, Son of Kannappa Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
1. The petitioner herein who has been arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No. 403/2008 of Sagar Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 r/w 34 IPC has presented this petition seeking relief of anticipatory bail.2. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 4.00 a.m. on 24.12.2008, two unknown persons gained entry into the shop cum residence of the complainant Tippeswamy resident of Lingadahalli village in Sagar Taluk and assaulted him as well as his wife with chopper causing them severe injuries. In respect of this incident, said Tippeswamy lodged a report in the early hours of 24.12.2008 based on which, case came to be registered initially for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 326 r/w 34 IPC against unknown persons and the Investigating Officer took up investigation. During investigation, the person arrayed as accused No.2 was arrested on suspicion and on his voluntary statement, the complicity of this petitioner was stated...
Tag this Judgment!Sayead Appu at Apsar Son of Ekbal. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
1. The petitioner who has been arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No. 17/2012 of Devaraja Police Station. Mysore City (C.C.No.721/12 on the file of Additional First Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC. Mysore). registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for an offer to enlarge him on bail.2. The petitioner along with six other accused persons said to have made preparations for committing acts of dacoity and they were apprehended at about 3.15 a.m. on 1.2.2012 near Eastern Gate of Town Hall Mysore City. The petitioner's prayer for bail came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore. Therefore, he is before this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail principally on the ground of parity since all other accused persons who are stated to be similarly placed, have already been enlarged on bail by this court.3. By order dated 28.3.2012. this Court has granted bail to accused Nos.2 to 7 in CrI.P.No. 1443/2012. As noticed su...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Its Chief Secretary Vs. A.R. Infant I. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order dated 16.3.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in Original Application No.545/11 vide Annexure-A and etc.) 1. These two writ petitions are preferred challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, declaring the empanelment and selection of third respondent as void, invalid, arbitrary and illegal as a result of non-application of mind and due to deliberate suppression of materials facts and consequently quashing both the empanelment of the third respondent as a candidate eligible for consideration and Annexure-A1-notification appointing him as DG and IGP. 2. The petition in W.P.8788/12 is preferred by the State Government and W.P.9655/12 is preferred by the third respondent challenging the said order. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in t...
Tag this Judgment!Shivaraja at Shivu Son of Lakshmiah. Vs. the State of KamatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
1. As these two petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are arising out same Crime No. No.6/2012 of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore City, they have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order,2. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 1652/2012 has been arrayed as accused No.1 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 1310/ 2012 have been arrayed as accused Nos,3 and 4 in Crime No 6/203 2 of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code.3. These petitioners along with other accused alleged to have made preparations for committing dacoity and robbers' near Siddapura Kalyani, situated in 1 Block, Jayartagara, Bangalore. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 08:00 p.m. on 09.01.2012, the Police Inspector of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore, received a credible information about five persons standing near Siddapura Kalyani in 4th...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Son of NingappA. Vs. the State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
1. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.6 in S.C.No. 1252/2011 pending before the Fast Track Court-XII. Bangalore City. He along with 12 other accused persons has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 120-B of IPC.2. As per the allegations made in the charge sheet, pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by accused Nos. 1 to 13, at about 9.20 p.m. on 8.4.2011 accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 and 11 to 13 pushed CW. 1-Ramesh Pandya from his two wheeler near Chowdeshwari temple Circle. Srirantapura and took away a bag hung in the scooter which contained gold ornaments weighing about 2 kgs. worth about Rs.3 lakhs. The petitioner was apprehended on 29.8.2011 and since then he has been injudicial custody. According to the prosecution, a gold chain was recovered at the instance of this petitioner. In this petition, the petitioner has sought for bail mainly on the ground of parity as according to him similarly placed accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11 and 12 have already be...
Tag this Judgment!Babajan at Babu, Son of Munavar PashA. Vs. State by Gowribidanur Polic ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
1) The petitioner has been arraigned as Accused No. 1 Crime No. 5/2012 of Gowribidanur Police Station in Chikkaballapura District, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 307 r/w 149 of IPC.2) According to the case of the prosecution, the case came to be registered on the basis of the oral complaint of Noorulla recorded in the Government Hospital in Gowribidanur at about 9.15 pm on 15.01.2012. As per the contents of the said complaint, there was a quarrel between the complainant and his brother on one hand and one Nourulla. arraigned as Accused No. 1 in the case, on the other hand at about 2.00 pm. on 15.01.2012 and in that background, later, at about 8.20 p.m. said Noorulla along with other accused persons came near the house of the complainant and assaulted the- complainant as well as his brother with iron rod, etc. and caused them severe injuries and thereby attempted to commit their murder. Perusal of the complaint allegations indicates th...
Tag this Judgment!Riyaz Ahamod at Noor Ahamed at Noor Mohiddeen, Son of Mohammed Hussain ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
1. Apprehending his arrest by the RMC Yard Police, Davanagere in connection with case registered in Crime No.78/08 for non-bailable offences punishable under Sections 62 and 80 of Karnataka Forest Act read with Rule 144 of Karnataka Forest Rules and Section 379 of IPC, the petitioner has presented this petition seeking relief of anticipatory bail inter alia contending that he is innocent person and has not committed any of the offences alleged and that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he is guilty of any of the offences, as such he is entitled for the relief of bail.2. The petition is opposed by the respondent - Police.3. I have heard both sides. Perused the records made available.4. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that, even according to the case of the prosecution, the complicity of this person was said to have been disclosed by accused No.1 who was stated to be the driver of the lorry which was intercepted at about 2.45 a.m. on 18.11.2008 near Ganesha Ho...
Tag this Judgment!Mr.imran Khan, Son of Amzad Khan. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
1. No.6 in Crime No, 19/2012 of Sulibele Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307 and 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, has thought for an order to enlarge him on bail.2. According to the case of the prosecutions at about 09:30 p.m. on 23.02.2012, one Niasar Pasha, resident of Giddappanahalli village, lodged a complaint about the incident of assault on his brother - Ansar Pasha at about 07:30 p.m. On that basis, the said compliant came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. The case was registered against the five accused persons named in the complaint and the investigation was taken up, Subsequently, on the basis of the statement of the injured - Ansar Pa3ha said to have been recorded on 01.03.2012 in K.I.M.S. Hospital, Bangalore, the petitioner herein along with one Shahataz - accused No.7, was added in the list of the accused and investigation was proceeded. The petitioner herein was apprehended on 08.03...
Tag this Judgment!M. Seebaiah and Others Vs. the State of Karnataka Represented by Its P ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
1. Succinctly stated, the Bangalore District and Bangalore Rural District Co-operative Central Bank Employees’ Co-operative Society Limited (Petitioner-Society for brevity), claiming to be the beneficiary of the subject acquired land, has preferred Writ Petition No. 36340/2009 seeking a mandamus to direct Respondent No.2 Bangalore Development Authority (BDA for short) to execute the Deed of Conveyance and to deliver physical possession of the land comprised in Survey No. 78 of Nagarabhavi village to an extent of five acres (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject land’), and to quash Resolution No. 14/10 dated 12.01.2010 whereby, the BDA withdrew its earlier decision to make bulk allotment of the subject land ostensively because the Petitioner-Society had failed to deposit the requisite amount. The BDA intends to grant some alternate land to the Petitioner-Society. On the Other hand, the legal representatives of the original landowner late Muniyappa (henceforward ‘i...
Tag this Judgment!Mridulla J. Rao, Udupi District Vs. Dr. Niranjan V. Joshi, Mumbai and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed u/Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dt. 9.3.12 on the file of I Addl. District Judge, D.K., Mangalore in R.A.No.119/11 vide Annexure-’A’.) 1. The 3rd respondent herein-Sujatha instituted O.S.No.25/2008 in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangalore (D.K.), claiming a decree for partition and separate possession of her 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties. Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 to 9 and the petitioner are the defendants in the said suit. 2. Plaintiff-Sujatha had averred in the plaint that the relief in the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is valued at `69,00,225-00 and she paid stamp duty of `200-00 under Section 35(2) Article I of Schedule-I of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act (hereinafter called as “the Act” for short). She also filed a valuation slip. In Clause 3(d) of the Valuation Slip, she stated “Valuation arrived on the re...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »