M.MAHESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to release him on bail in Crime No.272/2019 of Nandini Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Kumara K.G., learned counsel for Sri. Nataraj D., learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 virtually and the learned HCGP Sri. Mahesh Shetty for the respondent - State.

(3.) Petitioner/accused No.1 was working as an auto driver. He came in contact with accused No.2 about 1 1/2 months back before the incident. Accused No.2 told that he has three kids out of them one is about 5 years by name Basavaraj, who is in sick condition since from his birth and his family members are very much fed up with him. He also told that he had spent huge amount to hospital to improve his health but it went in vain. At that time, petitioner/accused No.1 suggested and planned to come out from that problem and informed the same to accused No.2 to kill the said kid by giving injection and demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- for committing the said act. In that light, on 05.06.2019, he came to the house of accused No.2, at that time, the deceased was in the room and accused No.2 informed his wife CW.5 to bring milk and he informed her to go out along with other kids. Thereafter, accused No.2 gave Rs.5,000/- to petitioner/accused No.1 as an advance and accused No.2 told that he will give the remaining amount to him later and petitioner/accused No.1 sent out accused No.2 from the house and thereafter, he killed the kid by pressing the neck and thereafter, the wife of accused No.2 came to the house and she asked petitioner/accused No.1 to have a cup of tea but petitioner/accused No.1 refused to have the tea and went out from the house. After sometime, accused No.2 told his wife that the child is not moving or breathing and accused No.2 told to his wife that due to fits child may have not moving or breathing and the wife of accused No.2 tried for half an hour but the child did not move and accused No.2 told to his wife to inform to all and thereafter, the family members buried the said kid. It is further alleged that petitioner/accused No.1 started to demand the remaining amount from accused No.2 for that he informed the same to his wife but they kept quite. When the respondent - Police conducting the investigation with regard to the rowdysheeters parade while enquiring petitioner/accused No.1 as normal process and he revealed about the truth of the said incident. As such, a complaint has been registered.