GUNAPALA SHETTY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Prayer: Crl.Petition Is Filed U/S.439 Cr.P.C By The Advocate For The Petitioners Praying That This Hon'ble Court May Be Pleased To Enlarge The Petrs. On Bail In Crime No.68/14 Of Manipal P.S., Udupi, For The Offences P/U/S 302 R/W 34 Of Ipc And The Prl. S.J., Udupi Has Rejected The Bail Application In Crl.Misc.No.201/14 On 2.8.14.) 1. Petitioners are accused nos.1 to 3 in a criminal case in Crime No.68/14 on the file of Manipal police station, Udupi District. The offences alleged are punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. They have been in judicial custody and hence they have filed this bail application seeking regular bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C.

(2.) Learned Govt. Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application contending that prima facie case is made out about the involvement of these petitioners in the murder of Sridhar Shetty, resident of Herda, Udupi Taluk. It is alleged that these petitioners had assaulted him with long and chopper on the morning of 18.4.2014 near Murattakadi road. When the wife of the deceased who is the 1st informant went there, deceased was still conscious and told her that these petitioners assaulted him. The allegation is that these petitioners were involved in illegally transporting sand and when her husband objected to it, they are said to have murdered him. The case is registered on 18.4.2014 at 3.30 p.m. on the information of the 1st informant who is the wife of the deceased.

(3.) Learned senior counsel, Mr.Ashoka Harnahalli representing the petitioners has argued that the petitioners had been admitted in Government Hospital, Udupi, on 18.4.2014 at 8.00 a.m. and they were not at all present at the time when the alleged murder took place. It is further argued that the deceased was already dead by the time the 1st informant went near the scene of occurrence and that she is only a hearsay witness and not an eyewitness. It is further argued that the statements of material witnesses came to be recorded belatedly and therefore this is a fit case in which discretion could be exercised under Section 439, Cr.P.C.