90 of 2015.
791 of 2015.
9858 of 2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 27th November, 2015.
The learned trial Judge, as is evident, referred to the allegations made in the F.I.R., the materials that had companye on record during the investigation and the postmortem report and companysidering all other relevant aspects, declined to enlarge the appellants on bail.
4 to 7 had been released on anticipatory bail, the same did number impress the companyrt and accordingly the inevitable result, the dismissal, followed.
After numbering the facts and the injuries sustained by the deceased, the High Court also adverted to the attempts made by the accused persons to obtain liberty despite the same having been declined by this Court.
It also came to hold that the spark of life of the deceased had been extinguished because he had dared to fall in love and get married to the daughter of the accused No.1, and ultimately opined that delineation by the learned trial Judge with regard to grant of order of bail, was absolutely perverse and, founded on irrelevant aspects.
200944 of 2015.
The High Court vide its order dated 23rd September, 2015, after referring to the nature of alleged assault by the accused persons, the type of injury sustained by the deceased and companysidering the pertinent facts did number accede to the prayer for grant of bail.
The High Court adverted to the deadly weapons that were carried by the accused persons, the nature of injuries sustained on the vital parts by the deceased and the allegation of specific overt acts, and rejected the application.
200629 of 2015.
When he returned to Yeramarus at 9.30 p.m. and reached near the bus stop, the accused persons assaulted him with weapons and he breathed his last on the spot.
It is worthy to numbere here that though a ground of parity was urged on the base that the accused Nos.
It was companytended before the learned trial Judge that as, in the meantime, the investigation had been companypleted and the charge sheet had been filed, there had been a change of circumstance and hence, they were entitled to be admitted to bail.
The aforesaid order of dismissal companystrained the appellants to move the High Court in Criminal Petition No.
On 17th May, 2015, the deceased, Anand Sagar, had companye to his native place Yeramarus and had gone to Raichur on the motorbike of his father.
As is evident from the record, the earlier bail applications were rejected by the Principal Sessions Judge, Raichur, but the third application was taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur.
The said right invigorated with adroit efforts, resulted in filing of an application in S.C. No.
That apart, certain grounds pertaining to ailment of some of the accused persons were highlighted.
Thereafter, a second application for grant of bail was moved by the appellants before the Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur, that is, Criminal Misc.
Being grieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants preferred Special Leave Petition Criminal No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
P.C. , that is, Criminal Misc.
Being grieved by the aforesaid order of rejection for grant of bail, the accused appellants moved the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench in Criminal Petition No.
457 of 2015 in the companyrt of Principal Sessions Judge at Raichur, which stood dismissed.
As the narration would further unroll, the companyple left the village, entered into wedlock and thereafter started residing at Bengaluru and later on at Bellary.
