SHIVANAND S. GOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.216/2019 of Honnavar Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 13.04.2019, initially a missing complaint was lodged by the elder sister of Savitri Prabhu and thereafter, after three months later i.e on 13.07.2019 another complaint is filed by the nephew of the Savitri Prabhu alleging that the Savitri Prabhu was mentally disturbed and was unmarried and staying alone in her own house and complainant used to visit her house whenever he used to come to her village. It is further alleged that when the complainant had visited Savitri Prabhu house, the complainant saw one person who was sitting in the Savitri Prabhu's house, when he enquired with Savitri Prabhu, she introduced as Shivananda Gouda and also informed that whenever she is not well Shivanand Gouda would visit and ask about her health. It is further alleged that Savitri Prabhu was interested in sale of her property which was allotted to her in family partition to Shivanand Gouda. So, Shivanand Gouda has visited her house when the complainant came to meet Savitri Prabhu. It is also further alleged that deceased was seen in Kumta bus stand with Shivanand Gouda and when complainant asked where she is going, deceased Savitri Prabhu said that they are going to temple and latter it was informed to the complainant that she is in market. Hence, complaint came to be filed alleging that the accused in order to grab the property of Savitri Prabhu might have murdered by Shivanand Gouda and hasdisposed the body. The complaint came to be registered in Crime No.216/2019 of Honnavar Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The accused came to be arrested on 18.07.2019. Charge sheet has been filed on 15.10.2019. The petitioner-accused approached Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada Karwar for bail and the same came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking bail.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the charge sheet records.