KEERTHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail with respect to his detention in connection with proceedings in Crime No.245/2018 with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120B, 212 and 506 of IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the alleged incident of murder of the deceased has taken place on 01.07.2018 and the complaint was lodged by one Sri.Rajendra Kumar.G. It is stated that one Jayanth, who is a friend of the complainant and his relatives by name Dasa and Mahesh. It is stated that there was animosity between Jayanth and Sunil - accused No.1. It is further stated that accused No.1 had invited the said Jayanth in order to settle the interse dispute amongst them. It is further stated that the complainant along with Dasa and Mahesh is said to have arrived at Anurag Layout and at the said place other accused were also present and altercation ensued between deceased and the accused and it is alleged that accused No.1 assaulted the deceased along with other accused. It is further stated that the deceased was initially injured after the assault he was taken in a car and further assaulted and his body was thrown away. On the basis of the complaint lodged, investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. It is stated that the petitioner is in custody since 02.07.2018.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the version made out in the complaint, the initial assault was by all of the accused and draws attention to the version as made out in the charge sheet and contends that the charge sheet makes out a case wherein imputation are grave in nature as regards accused No.1 and it is stated that accused Nos.3, 5 and 8 had assaulted the deceased with knives whereas, the accused No.4, the petitioner herein, accused Nos.6 and 7 are stated to have assaulted the deceased with broken bear bottle. It is further submitted that accused Nos.6 and 7 have been enlarged on bail in Crl.P.No.8906/2018 by order dated 08.01.2019. Hence, it is contended that, looking into the imputation as made in the charge sheet being similar insofar as accused Nos.4, 6 and 7, if accused Nos.6 and 7 are enlarged on bail, the petitioner is also entitled to bail on parity. It is further contended that insofar as the assault that is said to have happened in the car, there is no eyewitness nor is there any eye witnesses as regards his subsequent act of destruction of evidence and the case as made out rests on circumstantial evidence. Hence, it is contended that the investigation is completed and petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.