RAJASHEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant - accused No. 2 has filed this appeal challenging the order dtd. 17/9/2022 passed in Special case (SC/ST) No. 22/2022 by the Special II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, whereunder the bail application filed by the appellant - accused No. 2 in Crime No. 146/2022 of Challakere Police Station for the offence punishable under Ss. 302 , 201 and 34 of IPC and Ss. 3(2)(v) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, came to be rejected.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No. 1 - State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No. 2 remained absent and unrepresented.

(3.) Case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that the appellant - accused No. 2 had illicit relationship with accused No. 1 who is the wife of deceased. Accused No. 1 and appellant - accused No. 2 conspired to kill the deceased Gopalanayaka so that they can lead happy life. On 21/4/2022 at the instance of a phone call received from accused No. 1, appellant - accused No. 2 went to Yalagatta Gollarahatti village where accused No. 1 and deceased had gone in an Autorickshaw to sell vegetables. At about 11.30 pm, accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with the deceased were coming back to the village on a motorcycle near the land of one Dyamanna and accused Nos. 1 and 2 pushed the dragged the deceased Gopalanayaka as a result of which he fell down and sustained injury on the backside of his head. Accused No. 1 held the deceased and accused No. 2 pressed his neck and caused his death. It is further case of the prosecution that concealing the commission of the aforesaid offence they brought the dead body to the General Hospital, Challakere, stating that due to epilepsy Gopalanayaka died. Charge sheet has been filed against appellant - accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Ss. 302 , 201 and 34 of IPC and Ss. 3(2)(v) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Appellant - accused No. 2 has filed bail application and the same came to be rejected by order dtd. 17/9/2022. The said order has been challenged in the present appeal.