SHAIK ARBAJ @ ALLABAKSHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) It is stated in the complaint that the complainant's sister Susheelamma had two sons Rajesh Nayak and Akash Naik. Susheelamma's husband was no more. Another elder sister of the complainant Seethakka's husband Damu Nayak had brought Akash Nayak to Ballari and he was staying along with him. Akash Nayak was running a lorry. During 2012, Heera Nayak, the son of Seethakka was murdered at Ballari by Accused No.1 Ramesh Nayak, his brother C.D. Ravi and others. In the year 2014, the younger brother of Accused No.1 C.D. Ravi was murdered and in that case, Akash Nayak's name was forthcoming. Since then, Ramesh Nayak and Manju Nayak and his followers had developed ill will against Akash Nayak. Therefore, on 2.7.2015, it is alleged that Akash Nayak when he was on his motorcycle moving from Belagal to Ballari, he was waylaid and murdered by assaulting him with deadly weapons. On suspicion that Accused Nos.1 and 2 had committed the murder of Akash Nayak, a complaint had been registered. After receiving the news of the murder of Akash Nayak, the younger brother of Damu Nayak is said to have proceeded to the spot along with his nephew and found the dead body of Akash Nayak with injuries all over his body. Also, the motor cycle which he was riding was lying on the road and it was severely damaged. It is thereafter a complaint having been lodged, the police have arrested the present petitioners as well as others and they have been in judicial custody since then. Accused No.6 having approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.100144/2016, this court has been pleased to enlarge him on bail by its order dated 20.04.2016.

(3.) The learned counsel would submit that the allegations are only on suspicion as there are no eye -witnesses to the incident and on account of the earlier ill will between the deceased and the present petitioners, the same is being cited as a strong circumstance against the petitioners. This however has been disbelieved by this Court and bail has been granted in favour of Accused No.6. Therefore, by the same token of reasoning, the present petitioners also ought to be enlarged on bail.