PARASHURAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bail petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.116/2019 of Gajendragad P.S., registered for the offence punishable under sections 449, 506(2), 302 and 109 read with section 34 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 6.11.2019, at about 3.30 p.m. One Basavaraj S/o Shivappa Madar filed a complaint before the respondent police. As stated in the complaint on 6/11/2019 at about 3.30 p.m., accused Nos.1 to 3 with an intention to kill both the deceased persons as they have loved and married and belong to separate communities, went to their house, dragged them out of the house assaulted with stones and stick on their head and stabbed on the stomach with knife and caused grievous injures and thereby killed them. When the complainant came to separate them the accused gave life threat to him. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent police registered a case against accused Nos.1 to 3 initially and taken up investigation for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.4 in the course of investigation has stated that the entire material collected by the investigating officer does not prima facie indicate that the petitioner has committed the alleged offences. The petitioner is implicated in the case on the basis of further statement of the complainant given in the course of investigation. The petitioner never instigated the other accused to commit the alleged offence and the petitioner was not present in the spot of the alleged incident. It is also stated that the marriage between Sri. Ramesh and Gangamma took place about 3 years back and subsequently, there is no evidence of any quarrel between the family members as the theory of the prosecution with an intention to take revenge against the Ramesh for having married with Smt. Gangamma who belong to other community, accused Nos.1 to 3 murdered Ramesh and Gangamma at the instigation of the petitioner is not trust worthy. Retaining in the custody on the basis of false allegation is not justified. The Sessions Judge refused the bail to the petitioner erroneously. There is no prima facie material against the petitioner for the alleged offence. He is the permanent resident of Lakkalakatti village of Ron taluk having movable and immovable properties and the chances of absconding in the event of bail is not there. He is ready and willing to abide by the conditions to be imposed by the Court and to furnish adequate surety to the satisfaction of the Court.