JAGAPPA Vs. STATE THROUGH SEDAM POLICE STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner is the accused before the trial court having been accused of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity). The brief facts are as follows: One Chand Pasha was said to be constantly teasing the petitioner's sister Shruti. It transpires that on 14.06.2012 at about 10.00 a.m. Shruti complained to the petitioner that Chand pasha had teased her and the petitioner immediately followed Chand Pasha who had passed by their house and went together with him to an industrial area, which was witnessed by CW.4 Akash and CW.5 Baba. A little while later they saw the petitioner return alone from the industrial area and that his shirt was blood stained. The said witnesses had enquired the petitioner as to the reason for the blood stains but he did not reply. It is on 16.6.2012 that the dead body of Chand Pasha was recovered. It was noticed that his face was crushed and that his testicles had been squeezed. It is on suspicion of the involvement of the petitioner that the investigating officer had taken the petitioner into judicial custody, on an extra -judicial confession as to the manner in which he had killed Chand Pasha since, he was teasing Shruti and had confessed that he had killed Chand Pasha by squeezing his testicles and making him fall to the ground and then throwing a stone on his head and crushing it. The bloodstains on his shirt were said to be attempted to be washed, which was again recovered from the custody of the petitioner. Thereafter a case was registered against him.

(2.) THE petitioner having been approached the court below on the footing that he had been falsely implicated in this case and that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the extra judicial custody confession would not be admissible in evidence and that the investigation having been completed. The petitioner was not required for the purpose of investigation apart from this the petitioner suffered from a severe leg pain and added to it he was also suffering from mental illness. In this regard he had been referred to Nimhans at Bangalore, therefore has sought for enlargement on bail. The court below found that the circumstantial evidence ranged against the petitioner was strong and hence there were no case made out for enlargement on bail and in the event of any ill health suffered by the petitioner appropriate treatment could be extended to him and accordingly has rejected the bail petition. No statement of objections is filed by the Government Pleader. Having regard to the facts and circumstances there is no fault with the reasoning to be found with the reasoning of the trial court. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to reiterate the very grounds urged before the trial court do not warrant consideration. The bail petition is rejected.