BASAVARAJ S/O UMMANAGOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) The facts are as follows :

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that insofar as the first reasoning of the Sessions Court namely, the bar under Sec. 18 has been interpreted to hold that unless the allegations are made with reference to the provisions of the said Act, the same would not be a bar for grant of anticipatory bail under Sec. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further, the Sessions Court was in clear error in holding that the Petitioner had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail and the same was rejected It is further pointed out that in the complaint there is no allegation of overt-act against the present Petitioner and secondly the very identity of the Petitioner is in doubt as the complaint indicates the father's name of accused No. 7-as different from the actual name of the father of the Petitioner, Therefore, would seek anticipatory bail in such terms as this Court may impose.