Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 380, 511 of IPC and 30(1) and 30(3) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 and Section 3(2)
  • Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Sections 380, 511 of IPC and 30(1) and 30(3) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 and Section 3(2)
  • Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    BHUTAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA M. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

    This Petition is filed by accused No.6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him in the event of his arrest in Crime No.161/2021 of Hirehandagali Police Station registered for offence punishable under Sections 380, 511 of IPC and 30(1) and 30(3) of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958 and Section 3(2) of The Prevention of Damage to the Public Property.

    2. Heard both side and perused the material on record.

    3. It is the case of prosecution that on the night intervening 30.10.2021 and 31.10.2021 the accused persons with an intention to commit theft, removed the Kalasa situated on the top of Sri.Kalmeshwar Temple of Hirehandagali village and thereby damaged the property belonging to Archaeological Department.

    4. Accused Nos.1 to 5 came to be arrested on 13.11.2021 and their voluntary statements were recorded. At their instance hammer, spade, chana etc which were used for committing the offence have been recovered. The investigation of the case is still pending. The fingerprints of the arrested accused have been collected. The petitioner is absconding. The learned HCGP submits that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation and his finger prints have to be collected. Considering the nature of offence committed, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner files any application after his arrest or his surrender the same may be considered expediously. With the above observation the petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    BHUTAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA M. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
    (Jan 10, 2022)