MANJUNATHA, S/O. HONNAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned senior counsel Sri. Ravi. B. Naik for the Petitioner and learned Addl. S.P.P for the Respondent -State in respect of bail sought by the Petitioner who is one of the accused persons against whom case is registered in Ci. No. 24/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 304, 302 and 201 of the IPC.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that, the deceased Sakamma was kidnapped in the car by the accused persons and she was done to death and the dead body was thrown into a well. Based on the voluntary statement of accused persons, the dead body was secured from the well and the jewelleries of deceased were also recovered. The motive for the incident is said to be that the deceased was not happy over the complainant having an affair with the daughter of A -1.

(3.) ON the other hand, submission of learned Addl. S.P.P for the State is that, the statement of the witnesses CWs. 2, 3 and 5 go to show that this Petitioner was inside the car along with the driver and one Purushothama. They carried the deceased in the car and the car was followed by other two accused on motorcycle. The accused who were in the car killed Sakamma and then jewels were taken away and thereafter the dead body was thrown in a well. Therefore, referring to the statement of the aforesaid witnesses viz., Sahana. Harshita and Raghunandan, it is argued that the Petitioner was present in the car in which the deceased was carried Is therefore established and as such, the question of granting bail does not arise.