MURALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC registered in the respondent-police station Crime No. 46/2013. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. Counsel also made the submission that accused Nos. 4 to 6 have been granted bail by the order of this Court. Hence, he submitted that on the ground of parity, the petitioners are also entitled to be granted with bail.

(3.) As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that though the case rests on the circumstantial evidence, but looking to the circumstances collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, it makes out a prima-facie against the present petitioners about their involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. He also made the submission that looking to the statements of CW. 3 and CW. 4, it goes to show that the present petitioners also participated in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.