RAJA @ NAGARAJA, S/O. DASAPPA @ DASANAYAKA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE, AND BILIKERE POLICE, TALUK: HUNSUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ELIZABETH Rani, wife of Michael, filed a complaint with the Police alleging that her husband had gone for work on 28.01.2010 and did not return. Thereafter, she learnt that his dead body had fallen by the side of the road leading to Kendagannapura and found that there were several injuries on the body of the deceased. Thereafter, she filed a complaint against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the Petitioner's name has been revealed.

(2.) IT is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that accused Nos. 2 and 3 had been released on bail and further that there is no material against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) THE name of the Petitioner was revealed for the first time during interrogation of the other accused. So far as the presence of the Petitioner along with the other accused in the crime is concerned, the statement of one Chandra has been recorded. Initially, Chandra did not refer the name of the Petitioner. But, in his additional statement, he has stated the name of the Petitioner being the person with the deceased at the Bar. Apart from the additional statement and the voluntary statement of the accused, it appears that there is no such material against the Petitioner. The possibility of false implication of the Petitioner in the crime cannot be over -ruled. But, anyhow, circumstances will have to be proved by the prosecution in the course of trial. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail is to be granted.