IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 15” DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.8488/2010 BETWEEN: 1. Shamappa Adiveppa Karadi Narasapur, Age: 50 years, 0cc: Agriculture. 2. Kallappa, S/o. Ishwarappa Biliyali, Age: 52 years, 0cc: Agriculture. 3. Shivarudrappa. Sb. Sharanappa Karadi @ Narasapur. Age: 28 years, 0cc: Agriculture. 4. Chanabasappa, Sb. Mukkanna Bileyali, Age: 58 years, 0cc: Agriculture. 5. Prakash, Sb Kallappa Bileyali, Age: 21 years, 0cc: Agriculture. 6. Muttappa, Sbo. Chanabasappa Bileyali, Age: 22 years, 0cc: Agriculture. 7. Patnayya Sharanayva, Sbo. Channayya Ganachari Navairnath, Age: 20 years, 0cc: Manson, All are resident of Hirekoppa, Tq. Gadag. . . .Petitioners (By Shri. K.L.Patil, Shri. Pavan B. Doddatti, Advocates for petitioner Nos. I and 3) AND: The State of Karnataka, By Gadag Betageri P.S., Represented by S .P . P. . . . Respondent (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to enlarge the petitioners on regular bail in connection with Gadag-Bategeri P.S. Crime No.25/2010, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324. 448, 302, 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER The counsel for the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 files a memo seeking to withdraw the petition as not pressed. 2. The memo is placed on record. In so far as petitioner Nos. I and 3 are concerned, the petition stands disposed of as not pressed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner iSos.2, 4 to 7. the said petitioners are accused Nos.2, 7, 9, 10 and 12 respectively, in the pending criminal case. In so far as accused 3 Nos.4. 6 and 8 are concerned. they had approached this Court earlier in Criminal Petition No.8425/2010 and this Court while taking note ofthe fact that on the very day and at the very time, there are two other cases filed against the accused, whereby they are said to have committed offences far away from the place of incident. And this was highlighted as a circumstance that requires reconsideration of the bail petition of the petitioners since it is inexplicable that the accused could be present at two places, at the same time. The very same contention is sought to be raised in the present petition. This Court while taking note of the above circumstance has yet thought it fit to reject the bail petition. as there were other glaring circumstances, to establish their involvement and notwithstanding the infirmity that was sought to be highlighted. 4. In that view of the matter. the present petition also does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly rejected. Sd! Rsh JUDGE