UMESHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to proceedings in Crime No.266/2017(S.C.No.254/2017) for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 364, 404, 302, 201 of IPC.

(2.) The case made out by the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by Mohanashetty alleging that his brother was married to one Vijaya. It is stated that the complainant, the deceased and the accused were related and they had gone to attend the marriage function. It is further stated that on 26.05.2017 the accused had come to the village and took the deceased to K.R.Nagar on the pretext of some work which has been seen by the witnesses. It is also made out that the deceased was subsequently not traced. Despite enquiry with the accused, it is stated that no proper explanation was forthcoming. Hence, the complaint was lodged suspecting involvement of the accused. The petitioner was arrested on 03.06.2017. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet has been filed and the trial has not yet commenced.

(3.) The learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the ground of bail and contends that the statement of CW.1 and CW.3 would point out to last seen theory as the deceased was seen last by CW.1 and CW.3 along with the accused. Further CW.14 also has made the statement that the accused had brought the gold ornaments which was seized and handed over to CW.14 which according to the prosecution belongs to the deceased. It is further contended that the offence was committed for the purpose of wrongful gain.