Karnataka Court March 2012 Judgments
Pandu Son of Makbul Vs. the Station House Officer.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
1. The petitioner m accused No.5, He is seeking antsipatory bail in respect of Crime No.42/2011 registered by Mandi Police, Mysore City, fox the offences punishable under Section 143, 144, 147, 148, 307, 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused Nos.2, 3 find 6 to 11 have been granted bail and anticipatory bail. He haw else produced copies of the orders passed by the Court.3. Having regard to the same, I find that this petitioner could also V« granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory ball subject to the certain conditions:1) In the event of his arrest in Crime No. 42/2011 of Mandi Police Station, Mysore City, the petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond far a sum of 25,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.2) The petitioner shall cooperate with the I.O. far in...
Tag this Judgment!Basavaraju Son of Thimmaiah. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
SUBHASH B ADI, J.1. This petitioner is passed No.3 in Crimes No.72/2011 registered by Handanakere Police, Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkur District, for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that overt acts are alleged against the accused Nos.1 and 2. Similarly placed accused No.8 has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.653/2012, dated O7.02.2012- The allegation against this petitioner is that he was in the company of the accused.3. Having regard to the same, I find that this petitioner could also be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.4. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs .25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.(ii) The petitioner aha regularly attend the Court on heari...
Tag this Judgment!Sri. Kalasegowda Son of Dodda LingeoowdA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
SUBHASH B ADI, J.1. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No. 17/2012 registered by Central Police, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 419, 420, 470, 120B of IPC.2. The allegation against the petitioner and other accused is that they have misappropriated an amount to the tune of No.29,00,000/ - from the bank by creating fraudulent documents.3. The matter is under investigation. Having regard to the several transactions and involvement of the bank officials and petitioner being the president of the bank, I do not find any justifiable ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. However, if petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail same may be considered as early as possible not later than two days....
Tag this Judgment!Smt Gayathri Wife of Mr .Mahadevasetty. Vs. the Sho T. Narasipura Poli ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
SUBHASH B ADI, J.1. Though this matter was called twine, none appeared for the petitioner.2. The petitioner is accused No.1. She has been charge-sheeted in Crime No. 169/ 2010 registered by T. Narasipura Police, Mysore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC.3. It appears that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for quite sometime. The investigation to complete and the charge-sheet is filed.4. Having regard to the same, I find that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions;(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.23,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court(ii) The petitioner shall regularly attend the Court on hearing dates.(iii) The petitioner that not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindegowda Son of Narasimhe GowdA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
SUBHASH B ADI, J.1. The petitioner is accused No. 2 in Crime No.22/2012 registered for Electronic City Police, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Section 304(B) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.2. No doubt, there is a death note and allegation is made against the petitioner, but having regard to the age of the petitioner and considering that he has been in judicial custody for last 40 days, I find that the petitioner could be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.3. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.(ii) The petitioner shall regularly attend the Court on hearing dates.(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses....
Tag this Judgment!V. A. Narasimha Reddy and Others Vs. Government of Karnataka, Urban De ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-12-2012
1. In these writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs.i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Notification in No. BDA/SLAO/A5/RR/45/2006-2007 dated 29.05.2007 order Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act insofar as schedule property is concerned vide Annexure P1.ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the allotment of any portion of schedule property in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as per sale deeds dated 14.02.2009 and 04.04.2009 vide Annexure T and T1 andiii. Issue a writ of mandamus, order of any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to withdraw schedule property viz., Sy. No 107 of Bada Manavarthi Kaval Village, Kengeri Hubli, Bangalore South Taluk to an extent of 4 Acres from acquisition as per preliminary Notification No. BDA/SLAO/A4.PR:194/2002-2003 at Annexure F dated 7.11.2002 and final notification No. UDD/750/MNX/2003 dated 09.09.2003 at Annexure H....
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna, Mandya Vs. the Secretary, Home Dept. Bangalore and Others
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in order dt.3.8.2006 vide Annex-B1 and order passed by the Karnataka State Governor and its Chief Secretary, under Administrative Dept. (Jail and Cinema) order dt.3.8.2006, and Govt. order dt.14.8.2006, vide Annex-B1 where in at serial No.89, the name of the 3rdrespondent Manjunath is found, in the interest of justice and equity.)1. The son of a victim of brutal murder, is crying for justice, and is knocking at the doors of this Court, challenging the State action, of granting pardon to the perpetuator of the said heinous crime who is roaming in the streets of his Village, and wants to know, “is it justice?”.2. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Vs. Gangappa
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J1.The registry had raised an objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal u/s of the Karnataka High Court Act, pointing out that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 66135/2011 on 13.02.2012 and which is made subject matter of the Writ Petition being one passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and therefore had sought the clarification from the Counsel as to the maintainability of the appeal.2. In response to such objection, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant had endorsed that it may be posted before the Court for orders regarding maintainability. Matter had come up for such purpose before the court on 28.02.2012 and this court directed the matter to be listed along with Writ Appeal No. 6371-/2011, on 05.03.2012.3. This writ appeal was listed for disposal on 05.03.2012 along with other appeals. However, as there is no representation this appeal is being listed on 06.03.2012, 07.03.2012 and on 08.03.2...
Tag this Judgment!Basanagouda Vs. the State of Karanataka and Others
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Appeal Is Filed U/S.4 Of The Karnataka High Courts Act, 1961, Praying To, Set Aside The Order of The Learned Single Judge Passed In Writ Petition No.67432/2011 (LB-RES) Dated: 19/11/2011.) 1. This writ appeal is filed by the appellant who is the petitioner in writ petition No.67432/2011 challenging the order dated 19.11.2011, dismissing his petition. In the writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the Secretary of Panchayat Raj, Rural Development, Panchayat Raj Department, Government of Karnataka in G.O.No.GraPaA 33 GraPanA 2011, Bangalore, by exercising the powers under Sections 48(4) and 48(5) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (herein after referred as the Act for brevity). The petitioner has been removed from the post of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat, Tadakanahalli and also he has been removed from the membership of the Grama Panchayath. 2. The facts leading to the said order is that one Guddappa Gangappa N...
Tag this Judgment!Nagappa Vs. Gangappa
Court: Karnataka Dharwad
Decided on: Mar-09-2012
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J 1.The registry had raised an objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal u/s of the Karnataka High Court Act, pointing out that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 66135/2011 on 13.02.2012 and which is made subject matter of the Writ Petition being one passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and therefore had sought the clarification from the Counsel as to the maintainability of the appeal. 2. In response to such objection, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant had endorsed that it may be posted before the Court for orders regarding maintainability. Matter had come up for such purpose before the court on 28.02.2012 and this court directed the matter to be listed along with Writ Appeal No. 6371-/2011, on 05.03.2012. 3. This writ appeal was listed for disposal on 05.03.2012 along with other appeals. However, as there is no representation this appeal is being listed on 06.03.2012, 07.03.2012 and on 08.0...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- Next ›
- Last »