N. LOKESH KUMAR @ LOKESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The brief factual matrix of the case is that one Ramachandraiah has submitted in First Information Report making allegations that, on the date of incident that was on 14.05.2013, when the complainant's wife and deceased Shanthamma were talking together, at that time, the petitioner and his mother came in a motor cycle and it is alleged that the petitioner indiscriminately assaulted the deceased Shanthamma with a knife on vital parts of the body. In fact, the injured i.e., one Ramachandraiah also suffered injuries and she disclosed the incident to her husband Ramachandraiah and in turn he lodged the complaint. After thorough enquiry and investigation, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and his mother.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail because there is no prima-facie material available against him, as there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The medical report shows that the said deceased was taken to the hospital with a history that she was assaulted by unknown persons. Even the wife of the complainant was also admitted to the hospital and taken treatment with a history that she was also assaulted by some unknown persons. He drew my attention to the medical certificate of the wife of Ramachandraiah by name Savithramma that also shows that she was admitted to the hospital and she did not disclose the name of assaulted persons and a question mark is put in the said document. However, he contended that at this stage, the said Savithramma cannot be depicted as an eyewitness to the incident.