Yogish vs The State of Karnataka

This petition is filed seeking bail in Crime No. 429/2010 of Alur police station registered on 10.1.2010 for the offence punishable U/s. 302 of IPC.

It is the case of the prosecution that, on 09.11.2010 at about 9.30. p.m. deceased Kantharaju was requested by Accused No. 1 and 2 to take them in his auto for hire and on the way they put petrol since the same was not there in the auto rickshaw Thereafter, they entered into altercation with the deceased in respect of ban taken by the deceased from the accused. When the accused did not allow the deceased to go abead, the deceased put off light of the auto, It is the further case that, thereafter, the deceased Kantharajau was felled to the ground by accused. Thereafter, first accused i.e., petitioner put size stone on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, 2nd accused put another si(sic)a stone on the head of the deceased and caused fatal injuries as a result of which, the deceased died at the spot.

Heard Sri. Rahul Rai learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vijay Kumar Majege, learned HCGP for the State/Respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, one Praveen is the person who informed the complainant regarding finding of the dead body of the deceased and also auto rickshaw stationed near scene of occurrence. The prosecution has not examined the said Praveen. Thereafter he submits that, even though the incident is admitted, same has happened in the quarrel and therefore, the offence U/s. 302 of IPC is not made out which entities the petitioner to secure bail Hence, be submits that, petition may be allowed.

The learned HCGP submits that, Shivanna CW.23 has stated that, on the date of incident at about 8.30 p.m. accused was enquiring with the diseased to take them in the auto and the deceased refused to take the auto on the ground that, there was no petrol. Thereafter, accused informed the deceased that, they would go to the petrol bunk and put petrol and thereafter, they couki go ahead. It is submitted by the learned HCOP that, statement is recorded on 13.11.2010, much before the arrest of Accused No. 2. This petitioner is arrested on 02.03.2011. The learned HCGP tether submits that, statement of Sri. Darshan, CW.28 indicates that, they were traveling in the auto on the date of offence and at the time of offence, they stopped the auto in the middle and they sent one Umesh and Sridhar to drop him to his house. He further submits that, blood stained cloths of the petitioner has been seized and the FSL report has been sought for.

Under the circumstances, the presence and participation of the petitioner just prior to the incident is clearly established, even though there are no eye witnesses. Without expressing any opinion regarding merits of the case, which may hamper other side and having regarding to the fact that, this Court has rejected the application of ball of Accused No. 2, the petitioner/Accused No. 1 is also placed in the same circumstances. Hence, I am not inclined to grant relief of bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.