PANDAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has sought for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 89/2012 of Gurmitkal Police Station for the offence under S. 302 r/w S. 34, IPC. The grounds raised by the petitioner is, the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, there is no iota of evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The seizures alleged to be made do not connect the chain of circumstances to point out the guilt of the accused. Another material collected i.e., the mobile phone and other details is not from the mobile belonging to the petitioner. The alleged incident has occurred on the intermittent night of 15/ 16.06.2012 and the death of Sanna Sabbanna is not on account of the involvement of the petitioner. Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. After filing of the final report, in the changed circumstance, petitioner is moving the application and accordingly sought for allowing the petition stating that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner though the offence is heinous.

(2.) Learned Addl. SPP submitted, earlier bail application of the petitioner is rejected. After filing of the final report, the Sessions Court has rejected the application and thereafter, petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail. In midway, he has withdrawn the bail petition a month ago and thereafter, he has taken a chance again. There is no changed circumstance or new evidence is produced in support of his claim seeking bail. There are materials pointing out the guilt of the petitioner and there is a prima facie case and the mobile calls inquiring about the status of the dead body and visiting of the police to the spot of death and the mobile of CW 22 Sreshaila also point out that immediately after the incident, petitioner was under apprehension and to avoid coming to limelight he kept on inquiring and from the custody of the petitioner, some blood stained clothes were recovered apart from recovery of the axe at the instance of the accused on his voluntary statement. There is cogent evidence on record. There is no change of circumstance and accordingly submitted, since charge-sheet is filed after investigation, the petitioner could press for early trial and thereby, resisted the petition for bail.

(3.) It transpires, as per the prosecution, petitioner and his wife have conspired to finish of the deceased to get rid of him pestering for return of the amount which the 1st petitioner had borrowed from him for construction of the house. Also another version is, deceased was harassing the petitioner's wife as such, in this regard, having conspired, having thrown chilly powder on the face of the deceased, he has chapped of the neck with the help of an axe and has also tried causing disappearance of the dead body.