RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by petitioner-accused 2 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 118, 201, 302, 364-A read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No. 338 of 2013. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused 2 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that there are no direct witnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. He has submitted that the present petitioner is not at all the employee of Madhura Garments nor known to the deceased and totally unconnected with the alleged incident. He has submitted that there is no test identification parade conducted in this case to identify the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The voluntary statement of the accused persons was recorded on 24-11-2013, but before that, statement of other witnesses have been recorded wherein they have narrated the whole story. But how they came to know about the incident is not explained by the prosecution. It is submitted that from the date of arrest petitioner is in custody and the prosecution has not placed prima facie material against the petitioner. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in SLP(Cri.). No. 6943 of 2011 and submitted that even in the case on hand there is no test identification parade conducted, as such, petitioner is entitled to be granted with bail on that ground. He has also relied upon the order of this Court dated 25-3-2014 passed in Cri. P. No. 6949 of 2013.

(3.) As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that though there are no direct witnesses to the incident, but looking to the material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it establishes the chain of circumstances to show the involvement of the petitioner along with other accused persons in committing the alleged offences. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.