Mahendra vs State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The Petitioner is arrayed as accused No. 1 in Crime No. 260/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 364, 303, 201, 120B r/w. 149 of IPC.

Deceased Raju was the husband of accused No. 6. (sic) developed illicit intimacy with her. The elders, in particular the father of deceased and others convened panchayat and advised accused Nos. 1 and 6 to mend then behavior. But they did not mend their behavior. On 21.5.2010, accused No. 1 with the help of other accused kidnapped deceased, assaulted him and threw him into a channel of Shimsha river, Algur and caused his death.

The learned Counsel for Petitioner would submit that there are no circumstances to indicate that prima facie Petitioner was responsible for cause of death and even the motive suggested by the prosecution is weak. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled for bail.

The learned Government Advocate would oppose the bail application by contending that accused No. 1 had strong motive to commit the murder of deceased. The witnesses namely, Kudu Sadia and Eshwara had seen that deceased being kidnapped by Petitioner and other accused on 21.5.2010 at about 9.00 p.m. Thereafter, Petitioner was never seen alive. On the other hand, his dead body was found in a channel of Shimsha river.

The Post Mortem Examination Report would reveal lacerated injury on the inguinal region and also on the scrotum, prima facie the cause of death appears to be homicidal in nature. After the arrest of Petitioner, he made a voluntary statement and lead the Investigating Officer to the place from where the dead body was thrown into the channel.

At this stage of the case, there are no reasons to suspect the statements of witnesses and the motive suggested by the prosecution. Therefore, there is prima facie case against Petitioner for the aforestated offences. In the circumstances, he cannot be released on bail. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.