GANGADHARA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the State.

(2.) This is a successive bail petition. Earlier, this Court rejected the bail petition of this petitioner on the ground that the case was rest upon the circumstantial evidence taking into note of the fact that the towel, liquor pouch as well as the water bottle were recovered at the instance of this petitioner and apart from the said recovery, the last seen witness i.e., the petrol bunk owner had witnessed this petitioner, accused No.1 and the deceased who went to his petrol bunk and got filled the petrol to their respective vehicle. Having taken note of the recovery of the articles and theory of the last seen witness and also the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is a motive to commit the murder and rejected the bail petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that all the witnesses including the relative witnesses i.e., the brother, father and wife of the deceased have been examined before the Trial Court and all are not supported the case of the prosecution. The counsel for the petitioner also brought to notice of this Court that PW12 who is the mahazar witness with regard to the recovery and PW18 who is the Manager of the petrol bunk have also not supported the case of the prosecution and hence, no purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner in custody when the material witnesses have been examined and only investigation witnesses yet to be examined and hence, he may be enlarge on bail.