SUDHA SHIVARAME GOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, Smt. Sudha, wife of Sri Shivarame Gowda, MLA who is implicated as an accused in Crime No. 94/1992 on the file of the Bellur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 302 r/w 120-B, I.P.C. has sought for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing the State Government to release her husband Sri L. R. Shivarame Gowda who is shown as accused No. 7 in the aforesaid case. Though in the prayer it is stated that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagamangala should be directed to set at liberty Sri L. R. Shivarame Gowda, accused No. 7 in the case, but the effect of the prayer is to direct the State to set at liberty Sri L. R. Shivarame Gowda.

(2.) In the petition, as well as in the additional statement filed, several grounds are raised starting from the registration of the case on 23-9-1992 and arresting of Sri L. R. Shivarame Gowda on 23-11-1992 and the validity of the order of remand passed on 24-11-1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri C. H. Hanumantharaya also urged all those grounds before us.

(3.) The State has filed objections and also additional objections in reply to the petition and the additional statement filed by the petitioner. However, at the end of the arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Hanumantharaya submitted that this Court may confine this case only to the validity of the order of remand dated 24-11-1992 with reference to the provisions contained in S. 167 of the Criminal P.C. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to advert to the several contentions raised and urged with reference to the validity of arrest and other aspects of the matter. All those contentions are left open and this order shall not be construed to cover those aspects even though the same are raised in the petition and the additional statement. We also make it clear that the fact that the learned Counsel has confined the petition to the validity of the order of remand after raising other grounds, shall not affect the defence of the accused with reference to those aspects in the trial.