ADEPPA S/O BASSAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THE facts are as follows: The present petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3 in an incident whereby it is alleged that the present petitioner along with the accused Nos.2 and 3 namely, Mahakali Channappa and Yalagati Amresh, had consumed alcohol at Galag Village. Thereafter they had gone along with the deceased carrying more bottles of liquor and they were last seen together by CW.4. It transpires that later the deceased was found dead with bleeding injuries on his head and the present petitioner and other accused were said to be absconded immediately thereafter. On the basis of suspicion that the deceased had lent money to the present petitioner and since he was demanding repayment and there used to be frequent quarrels. It was the reason that the deceased was murdered because the petitioner was unable to repay the money and could not to tolerate the demands by the deceased. It was on that suspicion that all the accused were taken into custody. On the basis of voluntary statement made by the accused, it is claimed that they had recounted the sequence of events and the manner in which they had committed the murder. Therefore a case has been registered against the three accused under the several provisions of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on a parity of reasoning and would submit that the allegations are common against all the three accused except that the additional circumstance of the deceased having lent money to the petitioner by itself would not make him the murderer. Unless there was better evidence, which is totally lacking to find the petitioner as being involved. The question of detaining the petitioners in custody on mere suspicion would be unjust.