AMEERUDDIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge him on bail.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as per the charge sheet material are that the mother of the deceased has given First Information Statement (for short 'the FIS') before the police that her sister by name Taj Begum had divorced, as such, she had been to Chitaguppa village and started residing with her parental house. It is further stated that her sister had developed illicit relationship with petitioner-accused No.1 and the petitioner had given some amount to the sister of the first informant and thereafter, some enmity developed. It is also stated that the petitioner had criminal intimidated on the earlier occasion. It is further stated that petitioner-accused No.1 had conspired with accused No.2 and instigated accused No.2 took away the life of the son of first informant. It is further stated that the deceased-Zilani Pasha was 15 years old boy had left the house at 12:30 p.m. on 21.02.2020 on the pretext of going to Namaj but did not return to home. As such, complainant and her family members though searched for the deceased but could not trace out whereabouts of the deceased. That on 01.03.2020 the police came to know that a dead body of unknown person was found floating in the well of one Manikappa Hajargi and same was intimated to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant and others went and identified the dead body of Zilani Pasha-deceased. Further she has noticed that there were stab injuries found on the dead body and also found a knife near the well and suspecting the foul play of the present petitioner and as such she lodged complaint and after investigation police have filed charge sheet against the petitioner-accused.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and thereby only allegation against the petitioner is that he had conspired with accused No.2 to commit the offence. He further submitted that even though the prosecution has depicted story that the petitioner had taken knife from CW.32 but the knife was recovered after 3 to 4 months of the incident. The prosecution story cannot be believable. Therefore, he submitted that when the prosecution itself say that the petitioner had not committed any offence only conspired with accused No.2 to commit the offence and even though the entire case is depend on circumstantial evidence. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had not involved in committing the offence either physically or directly, only on the allegations petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, there are no cogent evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. He further submitted that Investigating Officer had already filed charge sheet and the presence of petitioner is no more required. He further submitted that the petitioner would abide by the conditions to be imposed by this court. Hence, prayed to release the petitioner on bail.