Sri Manjunatha vs The State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.—Heard learned senior counsel Sri. Ravi. B. Naik for the Petitioner and learned Addl. S.P.P for the Respondent-State in respect of bail sought by the Petitioner who is one of the accused persons against whom case is registered in Ci. No. 24/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 302 and 201 of the IPC.

The case of the prosecution in short is that, the deceased Sakamma was kidnapped in the car by the accused persons and she was done to death and the dead body was thrown into a well. Based on the voluntary statement of accused persons, the dead body was secured from the well and the jewelleries of deceased were also recovered. The motive for the incident is said to be that the deceased was not happy over the complainant having an affair with the daughter of A-1.

Though learned senior Counsel Sri. Ravi B. Naik submitted that, it is not very clear as to whether five persons were in the car or two persons were in the car and when the other accused persons have been let on bail, the Petitioner also could not have been denied bail on the ground of parity. Moreover, the recovery is said to have been effected from all the five persons. Under these circumstances, the statement of the child witnesses therefore cannot be given much importance and hence the Petitioner be released on bail.

On the other hand, submission of learned Addl. S.P.P for the State is that, the statement of the witnesses CWs. 2, 3 and 5 go to show that this Petitioner was inside the car along with the driver and one Purushothama. They carried the deceased in the car and the car was followed by other two accused on motorcycle. The accused who were in the car killed Sakamma and then jewels were taken away and thereafter the dead body was thrown in a well. Therefore, referring to the statement of the aforesaid witnesses viz., Sahana. Harshita and Raghunandan, it is argued that the Petitioner was present in the car in which the deceased was carried Is therefore established and as such, the question of granting bail does not arise.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the statement of the child witnesses, the name of the Petitioner being mentioned by the said witnesses that he being found inside the car in which the deceased was carried, in my view, the case of the Petitioner does not stand on the same footing as that of the other accused who are released on bail and therefore having regard to the nature of the prosecution allegations and dead body of the deceased also being recovered at the instance of the accused persons and so also the jewelleries pledged by the accused persons, the Petitioner is therefore not entitled for bail as his case stands on a different, footing as that of the accused who have been granted bail earlier.

For the above reasons, the petiton is rejected and it is made clear that the above observations are confined to only bail application and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case at a later stage.