VIVEK AGARWAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent - State. Perused the records.

(2.) The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in S.C.No.860/2019. This petitioner is none other than the husband of one - Nethravathi. The mother of Nethravathi lodged a complaint stating that the marriage between the petitioner and deceased - Nethravathi was performed 4-5 years prior to the incident. Both the petitioner and his wife were residing at Sun City, Bangalore. In fact their love marriage was not relished by the family members, but thereafter on the apology made by the petitioner, the said attitude of the petitioner was subsided. It is alleged that the petitioner was often demanding for a site which was actually in the name of the deceased who is none other than the sister of Nethravathi. As the complainant and other members of the family refused for the same, the petitioner with the help of accused No.2 decided to commit the murder of the deceased - Anu, W/o.Sanath, who is none other than Nethravathi's sister. In this context, it is alleged that on the date of the incident at about 3.45 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 both went to the house of the deceased, when her husband was not in the house, assaulted on her face and both of them squeezed her neck. Accused No.2 also helped him in wrapping the body of the deceased with a bed sheet etc.,

(3.) A charge sheet is laid after completion of the investigation. This Court had an occasion to deal with the factual aspect while considering the bail petition of accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.2654/2019, wherein it is observed that accused No.1 was actually seen near the house of the deceased on that day immediately after the incident. It is also observed that none of the witnesses say about the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2 nearby the house of the deceased prior to the incident or at any time prior to the incident. The entire recovery is also jointly made from accused Nos.1 and 2 and this petitioner was arrested one day prior to the arrest of accused No.2. There was recovery from both the accused. But at this stage, the Court has observed the recovery itself is not sufficient to draw any inference on the petitioner. The whole allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 by means of circumstances have to be established during the course of full fledged trial. Except recovery, no strong material is available at this stage. Under the facts and circumstances, the common allegations are made against accused Nos.1 and 2, who have committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, when accused No.2 has already been released on bail vide order dated 06.08.2019, the same benefit also requires to be given to this petitioner on the ground of parity. Hence, the following:-